is

but here's a point that people miss. seven other times the president has decided himself that parts of the law were unimportant and the law he side in fact was not going to endure. what about the preexisting condition program? this law was sold on the backs of people with preexisting conditions across this country and yet when someone showed up on february 1st of this year to enroll in the pcip program, they were told, sorry, sister, the program is closed. for 11 months people with preexisting conditions who were promised relief are simply

wandering the country what they were supposed to do. shop exchanges put off to 2015. delaying final contracts with contractors. delaying the employer mandate. removing out-of-pocket caps. no premium information. this was promised to me by the administrator of cms in july in this committee that i would have this information by september 15. mr. cohen we are going the long way now to september 15th. go to the website on healthcare.gov. come back and see us a few weeks we're busy trying to get it ready. thank you for mr. chairman. thank you for your time. >> miss degette for five minutes. >> before i make the opening statement i like to recognize the newest member energy and commerce committee, congressman john yarman of kentucky we're very glad to ask him. i would ask him to participate in the hearing today. he doesn't have subcommittee assignments but we know he will

be on this fabulous subcommittee very soon. >> without objection. >> thank you, mr. chairman. mr. chairman we spent time in the subcommittee on affordable care act. this is our 7th hearing this year. we haven't seen any problems come up in the hearings. i want to thank mr. cohen coming back during a very busy time in his schedule as the exchanges open on october 1st. on this subcommittee it is our job to unearth the facts in objective and non-partisan manner. with two weeks to go before the marketplaces go live. i want to talk for a moment what we've seen this year. we obtained documents and conducted extensive investigation of health insurance premiums under the aca. what did we find out? the aca is going to allow millions of americans to obtain affordable insurance for first time ever. hhs this week release ad new report showing that nearly 6 in 10 currently uninsured

americans, 23.2 million people would be eligible to get insurance coverage for under $100 a month. a kaiser family foundation released, study released earlier this month concluded that premiums are generally lower than expected. a new rand study reached similar conclusions. the facts also show that individuals with health insurance coverage are already benefiting from the act. the hhs revealed that 6.8 million customers saved an estimated $1.2 billion on their premiums in 2012 due to the rate of review provisions in the aca. this committee also conducted an investigation into the contractors responsible for implementing the aca marketplaces. this is one of my favorite hearings because what did the facts show? they showed that the contractors will be ready on october 1st. that they are taking appropriate steps to protect consumer privacy, and, as an added

benefit they're creating thousands of jobs. last month, mr. chairman, you opened an investigation into the aca 1/2 gator program. that's what we're here today for. you said dozens of letters to dozens of civic and community groups that received grants to help their neighbors sign up for aca benefits. in a letter to chairman upton, ranking member waxman expressed his concern that this investigation was not design to enlighten the committee but intimidate the 1/2 -- navigators. i agree with those criticisms. there seems little reason to put burdens on the navigators as they were starting to get their work going with the public and committee's investigation shows there is no basis for the allegations about the navigators. yesterday the minority staff release ad supplemental memo summarizing its review of the navigator documents. mr. chairman i would like to ask that be made port part of the record. >> without objection.

>> the investigation found navigators will help millions of people help obtain insurance coverage, they have extensive experience with federal and state benefit programs. most navigators are non-profit, non-partisan community service providers and they have effective privacy provisions in place. those are the facts and they show good news. mr. chairman you talked in your opening statement about these falls navigators going door-to-door and that is a concern. that's why we have a to have the real navigators in place so they can sign people up. and just yesterday, hhs, doj, and the ftc announced a massive antifraud effort. i would suggest we all work together to stop any kind of fraud in the system. and with that, mr. chairman i want to yield the balance of my time to representative castor. >> i thank the ranking member for yielding time. i wanted to relay today the enthusiasm i'm hearing back home from so many of my neighbors,

particularly when it comes to now, the bar against discrimination for our neighbors who have preexisting conditions. just over the past few weeks i have met with leaders and communities with multiple sclerosis, diabetes, hiv/aids, cancer, that now see hope. they have hope because they will be able to get insurance for a change and not be discriminated against. now since september of 2010 children have been, children with these chronic diseases, and chronic conditions have been able to get insurance in the greater tampa bay area. that has meant 237,000 children have been able to get insurance where before they wouldn't. now beginning january 1st this will apply to adults. they are particularly enthused but at the same time they're very troubled by the republican

obstruction and sabotage. they don't understand why now people are going to block access to the doctors office and affordable care. so i look forward to discussing that today. >> thank you. gentlelady's time expired. i want to recommend the environmental economy mr. shimkus will sit in on the hearing. thank you for being here. i will now swear in the witness. and so, introduce him. mr. cohen is deputy administrator director of center for consume information and oversight. recently served as general counsel for california health benefits exchange. we will swear the witness. when doing so as a practice taking testimony under oath do you have any objections to testifying under oath mr. cohen p. advises you under rules of house us rules of the committee you're entitled to be advised by council. do you want to be advised by counsel today. thank you. you swear the testimony you're about to give the truth, whole truth and nothing but the truth? thank you.

subject to the penalties set for the in title 18 section 1.001, united states code. you may give a five-minute summary of your written testimony. >> good morning chairman murphy, ranking member degette. members of the subcommittee i look forward to answer questions of cms on going work with of affordable care act and navigator program. cms and all our partners across the country are focused signing people up for affordable health care coverage that begins on january 1st. we're already seeing competition works. creation of new marketplaces is edge encouraging insures to offer plans in h with competitive states. rates are 19% less expensive as ccms expect. according to recent estimates as congresswoman degette mentioned many consumers may pay $100 per person less in coverage for

2014. when open own element begins october 1st is is. affordable and accessible health coverage that begins next year. we're working hard to insure consumers have the information they need about their coverage options. healthcare.gov received for than three million unique visits since its relaunch this summer and as required by the law cms awarded grants to over 100 organizations to serve as navigators. these grantees are groups and organizations with proven ability to reach out to likely marketplace consumers in their local communities. navigators include the pennsylvania association of community health centers which since 191 has been supporting community health centers across the state in their mission to providing access to quality primary health care. organizations like ascension health care which is the nation's largest catholic an knopp frost health system. the martin luther king health center serving the people in shreveport, louisiana, since 196. the university of mississippi medical center.

the united way of metropolitan tarant county which will be collaborating 17 other organizations assisting texas residents, helping peel in the fort worth and arlington areas for 90 years. and university of georgia, foundnd 1785 as the state's first charted university. i find suggestions that these organizations united way or university of the georgia or any of the rest are going to prey on people by stealing their identities to be with utterly without foundation. helping people is the reason that these organizations exist. navigators are prepared to provide accurate and impartial assistance to consumers shopping for health care coverage. they will be required to adhere to strict privacy and security standards including how to safeguard a consumer's personal information. navigators will be required, individuals will be required to complete 20 hours of i initial training to be certified, additional training throughout the year and renew certification

yearly. the work they will be doing is similar to work done for years by ships to help medicare beneficiaries to understand their options. i find it really unfortunate many of these organizations are facing distracting scrutiny while they prepare to begin this important work. one organization, a group prepared to serve individuals in four states, withdrew from the program as a result of this scrutiny. this type of scrutiny risks creating an insinuation these well-respected organizations and institution, food banks, large state universities and united way chapters have somehow done something inappropriate before they have spoken to a single consumer. these guys are trying to do the same type of work they have done in their communities for years and some cases decade. it is unfortunate that they are the subject of inquiries that suggest they are doing something wrong by helping people in their communities enroll in health care coverage. they're feeling obligated to spend time responding to inquiries and insinuations

they're hiring unqualified staff or won't follow federal grant regulations instead of beginning the task to helping people in their communities. it is disappointing and their resources and attention have been diverted at this critical came. i've been asked countless times over the past year whether we will be ready for day one. it often brings to my mind the implementation of medicare part-d. i wasn't at cms during medicare part-d implementation but i read the news stories like everyone else. i understand there were some serious challenges. seniors not enrolled correctly in plans. beneficiaries turned away from pharmacies without medications. cms solved these programs and the part-d program is now strong and successful. if you ask beneficiaries about part-d today, oh, that is the program that had so many problems when it launched. instead you will hear, that's the program that helps me afford my medication. and i believe that will be the story of the affordable care act. the people actually benefiting

from the law won't be talking about what happened on october 1st or on january 1st. they will talk about how their child can get health coverage even though he has a preexisting condition. they will talk about how there are no longer have to pay more for premiums just because they're women. they will talk how they finally decide they could retire because they can afford coverage on their own. talk about security because they don't face bankruptcy due to prognosis. we may encounter bumps when open enrollment begins we'll solve them. that's what we do. we at cms take this responsibility very seriously. thank you i'm happy to answer your questions. >> i recognize myself for five minutes. i want you to understand the function of this committee. lack of readiness or preparation on your part does not constitute a reason congress gives up its responsibilities to have oversight. i hope you have open mind as you go through. you've previously been hearing before. you told us everything was fine. it was like scene in "animal house" where person is saying

remain calm all is well while chaos reins. let me ask you a few things here. july 22nd, members of the committee wrote to secretary sebelius on price of health insurance we offered in the federal state partnership changes. cms has not announced approved plan premium prices. is that correct? >> that's true. >> my letter asked you to send what plans an prices available to consumers and exchanges. when will the information made public? >> consumers will be able to go online to see what plans are available to them on october 1st. >> are you available able today with less than two weeks before enrollment begins to offer any information about prices for available exchanges? >> my understanding we will be putting out some information on rates soon. >> certainly important for the navigators to know what kind of products they're selling and training was essential for that. so they do not have this information yet either? >> navigators will not be selling any products. >> they will be advising people about products they can then choose themselves am i correct. >> they will be advising,

providing information, impartial information about consumers options for purchasing affordable health care through the marketplaces, yes. >> i understand that which is advised them of things person can choose. turn to navigators more. the reason this program was intended to cost 54 million? >> at one time we put out a funding opportunity announcement for 54 million. >> that's right. you ended up spending 67 million, correct. >> we increased in order to provide more outreach and more help for pima right. on june 2013 a gao report cms expected to spend 54 million in the program. are you familiar with that report. >> there have been a lot of gao reports. >> this is, what you do for living i hope you see that one. july 21st, 2013. cms administrator wrote to to committee asking questions about the navigator program. she state the navigator program would cost 5million. cms totaled that they would cost

67 million a 13 million increase. when did hhs make the decision about increase of funding program. >> i do not. >> what funding did they use the 13 million increase for the budget what you do. >> i'm sure we -- >> suddenly appeared and. >> i know that we have had ongoing interest making sure we do as much outreach and helping as people get enrolled as possible and additional resources. >> yesterday the administration announced new initiatives to announce fraud on the health care law and call center with rapid response centers and to address security and privacy issues. can you address what these will entail? >> i know that we have a call center now. the call center is live now. i think the announcement was that there will be a way for people to report any instances of fraud and we are working interagency to work with the ftc for example, to make sure the appropriate people get that information. >> you agree the potential for fraud exists then? >> oh, congressman, there has been fraud before the affordable

care act and, so this is not the first program that has ever been subject to fraud and i imagine there will be fraud, that occurs. >> you're aware it is a possibility and you're going to watch this very carefully? >> we are. >> we will be following up on that. now privacy extremely important. are the navigators bound bit hipaa laws with regard to the laws for like health care people and -- >> navigators will have absolutely no access to personal health information into. >> but they may get some in the process. i have this kind of illness and may get that, not necessarily soliciting it. and will there be any laws binding them to confidentiality and not keeping those records? >> well they are, the terps of the grant and the terms of the cooperative yield that we have with navigators spells out very clearly their obligations with respect to keep -- >> correct. i talked to 1 1/2 gator in pennsylvania i think will do a good job because already bound on hipaa laws but not all have that in terms how they keep the records, what they will tell

employees to do. my question is there are any legal, any laws in place to prevent people from maintaining or sharing information that may be health care related? >> there are. affordable care act in particular provides $25,000 fine per occurrence if anyone uses any information obtained in the course of helping someone. >> that is obligation for the navigators? >> yes. >> will navigate force be going -- navigators going door-to-door? >> we will issue instructions to navigators they should not be going door-to-door. >> they'll will be the ruling you will have two weeks left, not be doing that. >> that's right. >> they will remain in public places. >> they can not be enrolling anyone now. no one can be enrolling now. going door-to-door to solicit people with coverage they will be instructed not to do that it is timely because no one can be going door-to-door because no one can enroll anyone today. >> thank you. i recognize miss degette for

five minutes. >> thank you, mr. chairman. briefly mr. cullen what is the purpose of navigator program? >> the purpose of the navigator program is educate people with respect to benefits under the affordable care act program to find out what they're eligible for and enrolling in coverage. >> can you move your mic a little closer? thanks. and who decides who these certified navigators are going to be? >> we had a grants process much like every grant's process -- >> but you had a panel that vetted the applications and they tried to choose people who had experience and some kind of presence in the community, correct? >> first, they were screened by the office of grants management at cms. then there was an independent panel that selected ones that scored -- >> in order to receive a navigator grant the applicant has to demonstrate they have existing relationships or could establish relationships with

employers, is that correct? >> correct. >> and navigator awardees have to complete a training program including 30 to 30 hours of hh developed program is that right? >> that's right true. >> and they have to pass an exam, is that right? >> yes. >> part of that examine clouds understanding privacy and a affordability programs, is that right. >> yes. >> so those people to get the navigator grants they have to certify they are going to comply with any privacy of hipaa or any other law, is that correct? >> right. >> now, under the affordable care act, let me back up. right now, when somebody signs up before the aca, when they signed up for health insurance, people would often have to fill out applications as long as 35 pages is that correct? >> that's right. >> and those applications included divulge all kinds of personal medical information because that was necessary for insurance companies to figure out what the insurance rates because they could discriminate

on preexisting condition and gender and all kind of other issues, right? >> yes. >> but right now under the aca none of that preexisting condition information is even relevant, isn't that right? >> that's true. >> so to site up on marketplaces and exchanges people will not have to divulge that kind of information, is that right. >> that's true. >> even if a navigator went to the door to try to explain to somebody about the exchanges they wouldn't have to get that information from somebody, right? >> it is not part of application, correct. >> but even if somebody just kind of offhandedly talked about their information, the navigator would be trained that that is private, right? >> correct. okay. now i want to ask you some other questions about the marketplaces are the marketplaces going to be up and going on october 1st? >> they will. >> is the federal exchange going to be up an going on act 1st? >> it will. >> that goes, if i understand,

people can go on the marketplace for a six-month period to sign up is that correct? >> that's true. >> so p somebody wanted, somebody, for example a member of congress wanted to go on the federal marketplace and look and see what plans are available, they could go on october 1st, right? >> they will. >> but then they would have some additional time to sort through all those plans and figure out what they wanted, is that right? >> yes. >> now if they do sign up, their coverage starts january 1st, 2014, is that right? >> that's the earliest they can start, yes. >> now, 23 states including colorado and district of columbia are either running their own marketplaces or, or they're doing a marketplace in partnership with the federal government, is that correct? >> yes. >> will those states be ready for enrollment for the start of coverage on january 1st? >> my understanding from our communications with the states is that all of them will be opening for open enrollment on october 1st. >> now can you give me a sense

of the milestones and benchmarks that this subcommittee should be looking at to measure the progress over the next few weeks and months? because we keep hauling people in here. everybody says they're ready. so i would like to know what are the benchmarks that we should be looking for? >> well, i think there are two types of benchmarks. one are the sort of internal type of benchmarks. how is the call center response time work? how is the website working? those kind of things how our systems are functioning. of course there are the external, you know, how many people are getting enrolled. we don't anticipate a huge amount of enrollment necessarily in october because as you point out coverage starts in january and people have until december 15 to pay their premium. >> i guess you're prepared if there are glitches to address those glitches quickly, is that right? >> absolutely. we are very well-mobilized. >> mr. chairman i want to say one more thing. i said this before. when we did medicare part-d even

though i voted against it and opposed i did outreach to constituents. i have my newsletter i sent out to everybody. i will let you look at if you want to. we can put it on the record. i suggest to everybody on both sides of the aisle it is incumbent for us as elected officials to get as many people enrolled in this program as we can who don't have insurance now. i think it would be a good idea. i hope it works. >> thank you i hope all the people from ibm, ups, xerox, cut from their plan will look at that. i know. yield to the five minutes to mr. burgess. >> thank you, mr. chairman. mr. cohen if i heard correctly in response to a question from chairman murphy, you said that navigators would not be going door-to-door, is that correct? >> the federally, the federal grant east will be getting instructions that navigators are not to go door-to-door for the purposes of enrolling anyone, yes. >> can i ask you, you have an evidence binder next to you.

could i ask you to turn to tab two in that binder? all right, in that project abstract summary, so i assume this was the sum rip that the company, or the group provided you in their application to receive moneys from the navigator grant program? the second paragraph of that summary reads, the proposed program will deploy 25 exchange navigators in each of the targeted counties. exchange navigators will seek out uninsured eligible county residents by going door-to-door. is that consistent with your statement to chairman murphy that navigators would knot be going door-to-door. >> sure. we will tell them they shouldn't be going door-to-door and i'm sure -- >> they applied for a grant and they told you they will seek out

eligible individuals by going door-to-door. did you read the application? >> so, first of all i want to say i have never seen this before. i had no role at all in the grant award process. so i'm seeing it for the first time now. i understand that that's what they said in their, i see those words. they're going to be instructed, from us -- as part of our agreement with them not to go door-to-door. i'm confident congressman they will obey that instruction. >> i have this question for you. do you know how much money they received in their grants? >> i would have to look it up. >> it was $1.2 million, i will help you. my next question, can we have the money back? they provided an application to you which was approved and the navigator program and yet they outlined an activity which you said is going to be expressly prohibited. >> i'm confident they will find other activities that will be very well-suited to helping people get enrolled in coverage and they will be a wonderful grant e. >> i'm confident the taxpayer

would like to have their $1.2 million back in the grant application was approved based on information which you said would make it ineligible for approval. >> i didn't say that congressman. >> let me ask you this. i have a series of questions and in time honored tradition of this committee i will ask for a yes or no response. will the enrollment process be ready october 1 of this year? >> consumers will be a trouble go online. they will be able to get a determination of what subsidies they are eligible for. they will be able to look at plans available where they live. they will see the premium net of subsidy they will have to pay and they will be able to choose a plan and get enrollment coverage beginning october first. >> let me rephrase the question. will the enrollment process be ready by october 1st of this year. >> i have nothing further to add to my answer. >> your answer sounded as if it could be a yes but left room for a no. so we'll mark down unequivocal response to that question.

will the exchanges be ready on january 1st of 2014? >> consumers will be, same answer. >> consumers will be able. >> to go on line, get a determination what they're eligible for in terms of a subsidy. find out what the subsidy amount. they have will be able to go and look at plans available to them where they leave. and they will be able to, and they will supreme yum net of subsidy and they will be able to choose a plan and get enrolled in a plan beginning october 1st. >> that will be ready on january 1st. >> that will be ready october 1st, that is my understanding. >> not your understanding. i have need a yes or no. you're in charge, right. >> my answer is based on what i've been told people building eye tie system. so it is my understanding. >> full implementation. law on january 1st cause employers all the iror drop coverage for their employees, yes or no? >> i don't know the answer to that question. i noem employers make lots of decision for lots of reasons.

having okay. >> some having to do with the affordable care act. something having nothing to do -- >> that's a no. will implementation of law result in reduced costs for all americans as routinely promised by their president. >> without accepting your characterization of what the president said, i think what we're seeing is competition in the marketplaces is causing competitive rates to be available to many consumers. >> after full implementation of law on january 1st will all americans still be able to keep their current coverage if they like it as promised by the president? >> again without accepting your characterization of what the president said, grandfathered plans are allowed to continue to exist without change under the affordable care act. it is up to private insurance companies what products they offer in the market. >> thank you, mr. chairman. hope we have time for additional questions but i yield back at this point.

>> sorry. mr. dingell, you're now recognized for five minutes. >> i commend you for this hearing. it is important that we have proper, friendly, sympathetic and intelligent oversight to get this program off its feet and going in the direction that we want it to go. the subcommittee has a long and successful record of conducting such oversight and it has informed the full committee and the congress of critical facts. used properly strong congressional oversight will lead to much good for the american people. i am fearful this current investigation into the navigator program might be turning into something less desirable and i hope that we will work together to avoid it. one of michigan's navigators is a group called access, a community-based social services organization i have worked with more than 40 years. there is nobody that knows our

communities better than them. this is exactly the type of group we should empower to help people sign up for health coverage. they're an institution, believe it or not serves all parts of the society, all racial groups, all rereligious groups and does so without discrimination whatsoever. my questions will focus on strong protections that exist in the navigator program and the status of aca implementation. my questions will elicit yes or no answers. i'm assuming, mr. cohen, that all of your navigators meet all of the standards of any federal government contractor, is that right? >> it's a grant program, yes. >> in regards to discipline and integrity and proper behavior, is that right? >> yes. >> all right. and i hope, as you need, you will submit additional questions

and, rather answers and responses to the question. for the record. are there grants cms recently awarded to navigators required by the affordable care act, yes or no? >> yes. >> is the training navigators must go through comparable to the training of agents and brokers who currently sell health insurance, yes or no? >> yes. >> does the navigator training include information as to how to protect the privacy and security of consumers yes or no? >> yes. >> are navigators subject to the same kind of careful screening as other entities seeking to do business with the federal government, yes or no? >> yes. >> will the navigators grantees be overseen in the same way as other cms grant ease are over seen held to the terms of their grants? -- grantees. >> yes. >> now i would like to move talking more about the opening of the new marketplaces which are less than two weeks away.

in 2012 were insurers much less likely than in previous years to request rate increases of 10% or more, yes or no? >> yes. >> would you submit for the record why that is so. >> yes. >> do you believe that the rate review provision in the affordable care act is a factor which led to this behavioral change on the part of insurers, yes or no? >> yes. >> do you believe that the marketplaces are working as intended by making insurers compete over price for the business of consumers, yes or no? >> yes. >> is, is it your expectation that the consumers will have more and better information because of the structure of the marketplaces? >> yes. >> would you submit some additional thoughts on that, please. now, in the 16 states for which we have data, are preliminary rates for health insurance in the marketplace 19% less

expensive than predicted? >> yes. >> would you submit additional comments on that point, please. have some insurers submitted bids to participate in the marketplace only to revise these bids and reduce their prices when other insurers rates came in lower, yes or no? >> yes. >> would you submit additional information on that question, please. will nearly half of consumers likely be able to pay $100 or less per person for coverage in 2014, yes or no? >> yes. >> would you submit additional information gore the record on that point, please. now, is it correct eight in 10 marketplace consumers are expected to qualify for subsidies to make health coverage more affordable, yes or no? >> yes. >> would you submit additional

comments on that please. now, we are just a few days away from seeing the full implementation of the affordable care act. i know there may be some up bumps in the road but we're head in the right direction. the american people are suggesting us to set politics aside and work together for the common good. i'm hopeful we'll take this as an opportunity to work together in a bipartisan manner. our constituents expect nothing less than that. one thing happened the other day. a spokesman for our good friend, former member of committee, tom coburn, now in the senate, said a government shutdown would be committing ritual suicide on the order of bad strategy said his communications director in the "national journal" daily. the idea that we could fully defund obamacare through the continuing resolution is a washington gimmick to advance political funding goals.

i yield back to the balance of my time. >> gentleman's time expired. now recognize mr. olson for might have fins minutes. >> thank you, mr. chairman. welcome, mr. cohen for returning to answer your questions. i note it is a busy time toy appreciate your time this morning. since the last time you appeared before this committee i've been home, talking to people of texas 22 about pending obamacare enrollment on october 1st. most had not heard of open enrollment. they haven't heard if their employer will continue to provide health care under obamacare. and now the ones who are working 40 hours per week are, working at minimum wage, that they may get their wages cut by 25%, down to 30 hours or less per week. but, they have heard about

navigatetores and they're scared. they have a lot of questions as you can imagine. they want me to ask you. so please give me a direct response and not a filibuster. the first question they are now, there are 104 entities that are navigatetores, is that correct? >> i know more than a 100. that sounds right. >> we'll assume that is corrected. how do these navigators hired people for the navigator position or currently have people in place to be navigators to fulfill requirements they must fulfill. any idea. >> of i don't think answer but i'm sure we can get you the information. >> we're seven business day aways from it rolling out. we don't have any how many and a half gators and how many people are hired as navigatetores? >> we didn't say that. i,.

>> we will be sure to get the information to you. >> do you know how many begun training or completed it yet. >> i do not know. >> okay about their training can you provide me training about details. i understand it is a 20 hour syllabus. is there a exam at the end? is that multiple choice? how does that exam work? details about the qualifications process. >> it's, it's, open book, 20 hour exam. it is online course. you go through the course. as you go through the course, you're asked questions about the material and you have to score an 80% on each section in order to pass and get certified. >> are there required to undergo background checks like i'm sure you did to have your job, i did in the navy, do navigators go through background checks. >> the organizations went through a varying russ scrutiny

process in order to receive the grants. we have not required, the federal government has not required that background checks for individuals be given but some states adopted that as requirement as they're permitted to do. >> and so the people on the street are required to get background check. tell me entities employing them are, but people knocking on doors, not knocking on doors but giving information out are not required to have a background check. >> like the ship program there is no federal requirement for there so be background checks. ship people helping people with medicare for many years. no background requirement by the federal government. states like the ship program are able to impose that requirement if they think that is something important in their communities. >> how about a drug test? can't get a job out of texas oil fields without a drug test. how about a navigator? >> there is no requirement that individual navigators be subject to a drug test, no. >> how about guidelines? how much does navigators get

paid compared to people out in the streets? any range of salary is? >> it is determined by each of the grantees. it is part of the budget they presented and the budget proposals were subject to review by the office of grants management at cms like every grantee to make sure the amounts being paid were reasonable. >> does the program have some quality assurance checks like a so-called secret shopper? somebody checks up and see what is being told is accurate? do you have some sort after program to make sure people are getting accurate information? >> we will be doing ongoing monitoring and oversight of navigator program and it could include secret shopper. >> and one final question. i was a panelist on a chamber of commerce board back home talking about the rollout of obamacare. and we have a couple of state representatives from texas on that panel with me. one said that he has heard that the navigators hitting the streets will have voter registration cards. have you heard that? is that true or falls? >> the federal voter

registration law as public program like medicaid in application people be given, offered about voter registration. that will be a federal law requirement. because application covers medicaid and chip and subsidies under exchanges we are required to provide information about voter registration to people. >> thank you. yield back. >> thank you. i now recognize miscast store for five minutes. >> well, thank you, mr. chairman. thank you for calling the hearing. mr. cohen, we're not even a, we're not even in the month of halloween and yet the republicans, one of their favorite scare tactics that we hear regarding the aca the affordable care act will lead to higher health insurance premiums and rate shock but while the my republican friend have made every effort to convince americans that everyone's health insurance premiums are going up

on we have the data that demonstrates that that is untrue. these assertions that health insurance rates are going up simply is not borne out by a number of analysis that have been conducted. so let's walk through the information on the affordable care act health insurance premiums starting at beginning. mr. cohen, when people shop for coverage through the marketplaces they will be able to compare plans, and then select a plan, sign up for the, either private insurance or a they have a state that expanded medicaid, medicaid, is that correct if. >> that's right. >> if they have a household income before 400% of the household poverty level, if you're an individual at about $46,000 or a family of four at about $94,000 on a sliding scale you will be eligible for tax credit, is that correct? >> that's right. >> or medicaid possibly? >> correct. >> at a very low level.

well, this week, hhs released analysis of the sense sass data on 41 million uninsured americans. of 25% of floridians are uninsured. you see why the new marketplaces will be a godsend for them. 41 uninsured million americans will be enrolled in the marketplace, can you tell us in broad terms what analysis said. >> thenal says said eight in 10 will be eligible tore tax credits through the marketplaces. >> did it say 23 million will be able to purchase coverage for less than 100 dal a month? >> that's correct. including the subsidy, yes. >> that is pretty remarkable. did you have a, have an idea that the coverage would be that affordable? >> i think there were lots of predictions about what rates would be. i think we've been just enormously pleased that the marketplace and competition is work and we're seeing availability of low cost,

affordable, plans in many places throughout the country. >> these findings have been echoed in recent studies by the non-partisan rand corporation and the non-partisan kaiser family foundation, two of the most respected non-partisan health policy analysts. are you familiar with these studies from rand and kaiser? >> i am generally yes. >> tell us in broad terms what those study the found? >> well, kaiser family foundation estimated that 18 rating areas, that is specific geographic locations that they looked at, 15 would have premiums below the latest projections that the cbo has made what rates would be. they talked about a premium for a 40-year-old in the second lowest silver plan being $320 a month nationally. that is the before the application of subsidies. >> mr. cohen, are the plans available on the affordable care act in the marketplaces are they a good deal for the quality of

coverage that is being offered? >> that is one of the most important things because these plans all have to have essential health benefits required by the affordable care act and they can not have annual limits or lifetime limits. so they're going to be there to provide coverage when people need it. >> and at the beginning of the hearing i shared with you, and my colleagues, the enthusiasm at home especially among many of our neighbors who have chronic conditions that have been barred from insurance coverage. if you have had diabetes, or, i talked with a gentleman with multiple sclerosis, hiv/aids. we all have neighbors or family members that have been barred from coverage because of these preexisting conditions. this is really going, it is, like i said, it is giving them hope. they can finally now obtain coverage. so will this high-quality coverage that's available for the same price, will it be

available for the same price even for many of our neighbors that have the preexisting conditions? >> that is exactly right. they can not be charged more because of a preexisting condition. >> so every republican analysis of premiums under the aca, you notice they ignore these key facts, that coverage has gotten better, that bar against discrimination for our neighbors who have these preexisting conditions now will go away for 129 million americans. and they ignore the tax credits. in my state of florida, they say let's conduct a study we'll show you it is not affordable. then they didn't build into the study the tax credit that are available for families and neighbors and small businesses too. the one really takes the cake, you know in my home state, i love my state, but when we need help when it comes to health care coverage. one of the things they did wins award for obstruction an

sabotage, they actually took away the insurance commissioner's ability to regulate rates and negotiate rates. is there any other state that has done that to your knowledge? >> i don't believe so. you know, i was a state regulator, general counsel to california insurance department and i know kevin mccartty very well. he is excellent insurance department. that is unfortunate their authority was taken away. >> thank you very much. >> gentlelady's time expired. mr. johnson for five minutes. >> thank you, mr. chairman. mr. cohen, first of all, good morning. thank you for being here today. first question for you, whose department is responsible for overseeing and administering these grants to the navigators? >> it's a combination of my office and our office of grants management, both within cms. >> okay. but you are responsible for overseeing that process,

correct? you're the director --, yeah, the grant process. >> the process of selecting the grantees or process of overseeing the grantees and their work? >> process of overseeing and selecting. >> i personally had no role in the selection process. we do that through independent panel. >> but you oversee it, correct? >> the people, well, i had no role in the selection process. >> no. but, who oversees the grant process? what is your role in the grant process? >> so in the grant selection process i had no role. >> what is your role in the grant process? i didn't say grant selection process. what is your role -- >> my office is responsible for overseeing the grantees performance now that they have -- >> did you review the criteria for, for the grant applications to be reviewed? >> i did. >> you did? okay. well, because, earlier when you were asked you said i don't know. repeatedly you said, i don't know, didn't, didn't have anything to do with that.

>> no, at that that's not what i said. i didn't review the applications. i was certainly part of putting together what the program would be because that is part of my job. >> okay. criteria, criteria for reviewing the grants, you stated in your answer to dr. burgess that when he asked you, could we get the money back for those that are doing processes like door-to-door, that are going to be prohibited you said they were confident they would find other activities. i find this, i find this rather an odd way of going about spending the taxpayer dollars because, i mean if you don't know where you're going obviously any road will get you there. this is consistent with the theme of let's pass the health care law so we can see what's in it. now you're trying to tell the american people we ought to award millions of dollars in grants and then find out how they're going to spend it.

i would submit to you that that is exactly the kind of irstopsable governance and irresponsible administration that the american people have become so frustrated with. and leaders who purport themselves to be directors, head of agencies, that feign i don't know, and shrug our shoulders and say i didn't have anything to do with that. it is disingenuous, mr. cohen. first question -- >> characterization of what -- >> reclaiming my time, mr. cohen. let me ask you a question. when you were evaluating the navigator grant program, were there standards on the, amount of grant spending per enrollee or per individual contacted by enrollment? you told me you reviewed the criteria. were there any standards about that? >> i reviewed the criteria for

the program -- >> you should answer yes or no. >> i was not involved in the budget discussions with each grantee over -- >> was there in the grant process, you told me you reviewed the criteria. you just got done saying that. were there any standards on the appropriate amount of grant spending per enrollee. that is very simple question. >> you don't recall. >> you don't recall. you don't know. >> don't recall. >> goes back to my first statement. were there any standards or minimums on the number of health fairs attended or individuals contacted via advertise meents? advertisements. >> i doubt the funding -- >> tell me what you know about the criteria. you reviewed the criteria. tell me what you know about the criteria. >> we put out a funding opportunity announcement that describes the program. >> i don't know what you did. i want you to tell me what the criteria was. what's the criteria for a grant. >> i don't how to answer your question. >> you don't know. you don't know. that is appalling to me. turn to exhibit 1, please.

i think it is reprehensible you would come before the american people as a director of a department and you don't know. you sat there and tell me that you review the grant process. you review the criteria. and yet you don't know. you gant give the first sentence about that criteria. turn to exhibit one, please. >> i have it. >> this is 1/2 bite tore grant application provided to the committee by the administration. it shows a navigator applicant who expects to facilitate enrollment of 312 people into qualified health plans. you awarded this organization approximately$0,000 of taxpayer money for only 300 people. now, i acknowledge you said you didn't have anything to do with the grant award but you set up the criteria. do you believe that this is an

efficient use of taxpayer dollars? i can dot quick math. that is $266 per person. >> gentleman -- we may go to second round. if you have more questions i will, we'll let you answer. >> i'm not even checking the clock. sorry, mr. chairman. i yield back. >> we can go back. >> as i said -- >> have a chance -- >> i literally not seen this before today. i'm happy to go back and look at it an answer your questions. i just can't do that today. >> i'm not surprised -- mr. cohen. i'm not surprised at all. >> i'm not part of the grant application and award process. for reasons that i'm sure you understand. >> we'll follow up with that. mr. waxman is now recognized for five minutes. >> mr. cohen, do you approve the budgets of the navigators? >> i did not. >> no, do you? >> no. i don't. >> your agency doesn't? >> yes. >> your agency does? >> yes. >> okay, so what you did is help establish the criteria for awarding these grants to

navigators who will help people know what insurance options are available to them and help them sort through a new law that they have heard a lot of negative things about from partisan republicans who want to demonize the idea that people will be able to get insurance. i think that, the questions you, just had were off the mark and not appropriate for congress. i don't think we ought to beat up on people, because you don't, they don't like the law. so, the criteria is, to select people who can do the job as navigators, right? >> yes. >> and you had something to do with that? >> correct. >> and then the grants that are made to different applicants, to be the navigators, who decide that? >> we have a process where our office of grants management, this is the same as every grant cms awards a lot of grants. >> yes. >> every grant goes through a screening process where they review the application, they

review the management of applicant. they review the budget. they score them. that then goes to an independent review committee that makes selections based on the criteria an purposes of program. >> so they had no, no one has basis for criticizing you for what an independent grant committee reviews and decides, isn't that correct? >> i agree with you. >> okay. look, i don't even know what this hearing is all about. we have had so many hearings by the republicans to beat up on the affordable care act. they don't like it. i got the idea. when they wanted to repeal it, they could have gotten message out by asking us to vote for five times. instead they voted 41 times. because they have nothing else to do but attack this affordable care act. why do they want to do that? they want to confuse people. they want to scare people. that is what this hearing is all about. in fact, the people who are doing the work of navigators

they're called, are now being intimidated by the republicans who are geting a long list of questions asking them, did at the do something wrong i gather. that seems to me so unfair. you've got a clinic, you've got people that work for, in a homeless shelter. you've got people who work with an ethnic commune. people who are there in the community and know the community well and they have been selected and had to go through tests and classes to be good navigators and they're going to do their job. and now they get letters from members of congress asking them to fill out answers to long list of questions. you know what kind of questions they have been asked? >> they have been asked very detailed questions about both the application process and about what their plans are for what they're going to do before they have even started work, before they hired their staff. >> this is nothing but

intimidation by this committee. congress has a lot of power. when the chairman or a member gets the chance to ask questions, that's a lot of power. but what we need to do is restrain ourselves from the abusing that power. and i haven't seen much restraint around here. and i understand 1 1/2 gator already dropped out of the program because they just said, we don't have enough money to do the work of answering questions from congress as well as reaching out to the community, isn't that right? >> yes, that's true. i have heard from others that are very concerned. they don't know what to do with, in response to this, to these inquiries that they have gotten. >> i just think this is such an abuse of power to intimidate navigators who are going to explain the new law to people. in california, we're running the program. and, we licensed people who sell private insurance. and the state has taken over the responsibility of approving the

navigators, hasn't it? >> yes. >> so they have a job to do. they have been checked out to be sure they are people who are capable of doing the job. we don't call in private insurance salesmen to ask them a whole bunch of questions but when they're trying to, just get the community to understand something new, this committee abuses its power and wants to ask all sorts of questions. and a the a time when they're trying to run this program, with a couple of weeks left before the opening of the exchanges. >> and i would just, add, if i might, that any state that wanted to run their navigator program had the ability to do that by either operating its own marketplace or by being consumer assistance partner with us. they could have taken over the whole thing. >> my state's doing a good john. we'll have a great success in california. i think we'll have success around the country, unless republicans intimidate people, whether it is the state level,

or the federal level, to scare them about the idea that they can get insurance that has been denied them in the past and republicans said nothing about it but denied them in the past because they had preexisting medical conditions. >> time expired. >> or couldn't afford the insurance policy. i don't know what this hear something all about except to intimidate people. and i resent it, mr. chairman and i resent the kind of questions that i our witness has just been subjected to by my colleague. yield back my time. >> gentleman question or query. california has, is taken over these things and they have also have laws for insurance agents who sell the policies. are you saying that they would be under the same guidance or rules of regulation of insurance age sent could you clarify that for the record? >> mr. cohen could probably do it better. as i understand it, california is going by the standards set by the federal government, isn't that right? why don't you answer it? >> california, because it is

operating its own marketplace has its own navigator program and it, it is not requiring a navigators to be agents and brokers. we issued regulations saying states may not do that. it has put in additional requirements above and beyond the federal requirements as states may do. >> just for clarification, i'm just confused. many states have rules about continuing education, fingerprinting, background checks. licensing tests for agents. so if they're under the california program they're not going to be part of those same sort of rules? there is a separate? >> i'm not 100% familiar with what california is doing but i believe california is requiring background check and fingerprints. could you just let us know. >> sure. >> thank you very much. now recognize mr. scalise for five questions, five minutes. >> hopefully i can get to more than five questions. i will do my best to get questions i have. mr. chairman, thank you for this committee.

i think it is important to have oversight for a program not only involving $67 million of taxpayer money but a new program, where navigators people go throughout america trying to sign people up for the president's health care, so many problems to kind of insinuate we should not ask be tough questions? american people have tough questions. that's why they sent us here. . .

>> all of a sudden we start asking basic questions, and people are feigning that, you know, we shouldn't be asking tough questions because with, boy, that poor president, it might make his law look bad if people figure out what's in it. >> congressman, i have no problems of people asking questions of me. i've always done by best to answer the questions, provide additional information when i wasn't able to answer questions -- the concern that i have, the concern -- so any questions you have for me -- >> i want to ask you about background checks. >> the concern that i have is for the scrutiny that these navigator groups were put under -- >> met me ask you, and i would ask you to get the committee of any navigators who dropped out of the program because of scrutiny, can you get that

information to this committee? >> yes. >> if any navigator dropped out because they didn't want to be held accountable for the taxpayer money they're receiving, they ought to get out of the -- >> that wasn't the reason. >> we're asking real questions, they ought to be providing answers. >> that wasn't the reason. >> i want to ask about criminal background checks. this is a big concern of a lot of people, i know, in my district. why is it you did not choose to include background checks tar going to be asking people for very secure personal information about their health? >> first of all be, they're not going to be asking information about their health, that's right. >> these people are going to be conversations about health care, they're going to try to be giving them advice, aren't they? about what kind of health care options they have in these exchanges? >> they're not going to be asking people information about their health, that's not part of the -- >> a they going to be -- are they going to be asking them health care questions? >> they are not going to be

asking them information about their health. it's not part of the application. >> let me ask you this, if somebody just got released from prison prison for a conviction on identity theft, would that person be eligible to be a navigator? yes or no? you're under oath. >> i am confident that the organizations that we have given grants -- >> can they be el i didn't believe? it's a yes or no question. i'm sure what you hope -- if you hope that they're not eligible, why didn't you make that a rule? am i incorrect in seeing that a person who was just released from prison on identity theft can be a navigator? is that an inaccurate statement? i'm making that saint right now. your rules allow someone who committed identity theft to be eligible to be a navigator. if i'm saying anything incorrect, you just correct me right now. >> we have had experience for many, many years with the schip

program. i am not aware -- >> correct. if you correct me, then i'll stop saying it. i just made a statement. if i said anything inaccurate, please correct me, but if you don't, i'll keep making it. >> there is no federal requirement for criminal record checks in the navigator, some states -- excuse me. >> that's my time. he didn't answer my question. >> point of order. the gentleman ought to be given the courtesy to answer the question. >> he will be, i'll ask one -- >> i ask for your support here in being able to answer these questions. >> the question is or but you concerned that invoking criminal background checks that might be -- >> mr. cohen, you may may answer the question. >> we want to get as many -- we had a a number of factors. it was not clear to us that we have the authority to require the criminal background checks, and we wanted to make, we left it up to the states to determine

whether that was a requirement -- >> that was a yes or no question. i would just ask if you could give a yes or no be answer to a -- were you concerned that invoking background checks might limit the number of people that would apply to be navigators? >> the cost and difficulty of doing criminal background checks, yes, we were concerned about that. >> mr. cohen, would you be able provied with us information on -- provide with us information, you said some states have it, some states don't -- >> sure, be happy to. >> it's a concern for members on both sides of the aisle to make sure the people coming through are trut worthy. now -- trustworthy. >> thank you, mr. chair. mr. cohen, thank you for returning to the committee and for your diligent work thus far in trying to implement the biggest reform to our nation's health care system in our history. this is no small task, and so we all appreciate -- i would hope we all appreciate the commitment and grace you have shown in taking on this work.

and i have some questions, and i'll allow you to answer them and not talk over you. we've understandably heard a a lot already today about the exchanges which are the most vez bl piece of the aca. so i wanted to take the time to ask ask you about some of the other insurance reforms under aca that your center is responsible for. under the aca, the center is charged with providing support to consumers when insurance companies deny coverage for service or treatment. one sump example of a guaranteed example is genetic counseling for women meeting certain risk criteria for hereditary breast and ovarian cancer. however, i've heard cases of women in new york who have been denied testing to have it done. my understanding is that this should not happen and that your center is charged with insuring that it doesn't. what resources and assistance

does the center offer for consumers who need to appeal health insurance claims' decisions, and where can consumers gain easy access to these resources? >> so there is a requirement under the affordable care act for an external appeal process after someone goes through the process through their insurance carrier. and new york is probably running that appeals process. i'd have to go back and look. some states are doing it n some cases the federal government is doing it if the state doesn't have a process that meets the required standard. in addition, we work very closely with the state department of insurance. when we learn of something that is a systemic problem so if it's not just one particular individual or two, but it looks as though a particular carrier or, more broadly, all the carriers in a market or whatever are not abiding by the provisions of the affordable

care act, we work very closely with state insurance departments to make sure a they do. >> thank you. and perhaps if you could look more closely at that specific situation, i would appreciate it. >> we'd be happy to. >> as you know, the implementation of the affordable care act will extend federal parity protections from mental health parity and equity act to more than 62 million americans. however, given the delay in issuing regulations, it is doubtful the american people will enjoy the full protections of mental health parity consistent with the spirit of that legislation as the aca goes into full effect in 2014. with another terrible tragedy unfolding again this week here in d.c., the need for a robust national commitment to mental health has been highlighted yet again. we've heard from officials that a final parity regulation would be with finished by the end of year, a date which is rapidly approaching. can you provide us with any more details on when to expect any such parity rule? >> so we have committed that

there will be a rule out by the end of the year. i'm confident there will be. i know work is ongoing. i've been to meetings where we're reviewing provisions of the final rule. it's moving through our process. i can't give you an exact date of when it will be coming out, but it will be coming out by the end of the year. >> can you describe in detail the current schedule your office goes through? >> sure. as with hipaa and mental health parity, again, the states are the principal, primary enforcer. so what we typically do when we hear about problems -- and we do have a hotline where people can call and, you know, tell us about problems they're having with their insurance company -- we generally will reach out first to the state department of insurance. there have been some instances since i've been at cciio where we have dealt directly with the

insurance companies to make sure that they are complying. we've also done some outreach and education because i know that requirements of the mental health parity law are not as well known and understood, so we've been doing some outreach and education both to the issuer community and to the state insurance departments to make sure today understand the provision of the law. >> these investigations, mr. cohen, of parity violations are conducted, are the results of these investigations paid public? >> it depends. what we try to do normally is get compliance, and if we're able to get compliance, then -- and there's no administrative action that's begun, then typically that would not be public. if we go to the point of actually beginning administrative action and the possible imp position of civil monetary penalty, that would be public. >> with i know my five minutes are up, and with that i -- >> recognize mr. harper for five minutes.

thank you. >> thank you, mr. chairman. mr. cohen, good to see you again. and i have a few questions. if i could get you to look in the notebook and turn to exhibit 4 for just a moment, please? exhibit 4? and if you'll look at that, you'll see that number 14 says incentives for quality connections, and the second sentence states they, meaning navigators, have the opportunity to earn 200 additional, $200 additional per quarter if they meet a standard of 300 enrollments or screenings during the quarter. do you see that? >> i do. >> do you believe it's appropriate to pay navigators for the number of individuals enrolled? >> in the federal program, we are not permitting navigators to be paid by the number of enrollments. i understand this may be an application, but we are not permitting that. >> so what are they getting, just a straight salary? a straight -- so they get paid the same, you're saying this is not true?

>> this is an application. >> okay. >> but i'm telling you that in the federal program, navigators are not being paid by the number of enrollees. >> okay. but didn't you approve the this application? >> i did not. >> somebody approved -- >> we did, we did. so there's a budget process that goes through before a grant is awarded, and i don't know the specifics of this particular applicant, but i am confident that the budget that was worked out did not include payment per enrollee. >> can you check that to be 100% sure and get back with us in writing on that? >> i would be happy to. >> so is there another application, another form that we should be looking at? >> well, there's a grant award, there's a cooperative agreement between the bran tee and cms, yes. this is just the application. >> let me -- >> part of the application. >> well, let me ask you this: if this were true, would you believe that we should be incentivizing navigators to enroll as many people as possible? >> in the federal program, we made the decision not to permit

compensation based on number of enrollees. >> okay. well, you know, but this is the document that that you provided to us, if i'm not mistaken. >> it's an application. >> okay. well, and that's what i'm referring to, is the document. so just so i'm clear, are you saying then that no navigator is being paid additional money or bonus money by the number of people signed up, that's what you're saying? >> in the federal program, correct. >> all right. well, what about any other program or other entity? >> my understanding is that there may be some states that are paying -- >> okay. >> paying some portion of compensation per enrollee. >> and you would know which states those are, correct? >> we can get that information for you. >> would you do that? and what amount, if they're paying all navigators a bonus based upon number, i would want to know that. all right. are you going to issue any type of statement or standards for navigators or direct the states

not to do this? >> no. we've left -- i mean, the states, as throughout the affordable care act we've given the states a lot of flexibility to design program in the way they think is best for their state. in the federal program, navigate ors are not being paid per enrollee. >> all all right. following up on other questions, my be understanding of what you're saying is navigators are not subjected to a criminal background check, correct? >> there is no federal requirement for a criminal background check. some states are imposing a criminal background check requirement on navigators. >> but it's not your requirement, federal requirement to do that. >> that's right. >> but the navigators, though, are going door to door on some situations, correct? >> navigators are, will be told that they should not go door to door to solicit people to enroll in coverage. >> they're being told not to. >> not to. >> okay. do you know if they are doing that at any of the state level? >> i don't want. >> okay.

can you let us know that too, please? >> i can try to find that out. >> if i could get you now to turn to exhibit number 8, exhibit 8 is a work plan from one approved navigator. if you look through, you will see promises to complete 24,000robo calls in the fist quarter, 73,000 in the second quarter, another 72 in the third and 72,000 more in the fourth quarter. you see that document? >> yes. >> do you believe that navigators should be using taxpayer dollars to fund robocalls? >> you know, i'm going to have to check to see what our vuxes are going to be -- instructions are going to be about that. my understanding generally is that our expectation is that when it comes to enrollment assistance, we're expecting that people are going to come to the

navigators rather than the navigators going to them. >> sure. but this is an application that was approved. so this was an approved application, was it not in. >> this grantee was awarded a grant. it doesn't mean every single thing in the application ended up in the final -- >> all right. but they awarded a grant, and that application did call for robocalls that you saw, okay? yield back. >> thank you. gentleman's time has expired. now to mr. green for five minutes. >> thank you, mr. chairman. mr. cohen, let me explain the district i represent. i have a very urban district in houston and have some of the highest in the country of uninsured. the numbers in my district compare to some of the poorest counties in the country. some of the questions you're hearing in looking at the exhibits, i know my navigators are not going door the door. they're prohibited from doing it. but with enroll america, which is a nonprofit group, is doing that. in fact, i asked them to do that in my district. i want them to be out there making people know that this

law's available. what you're hearing today is folks who don't like the law, and that's okay. they didn't vote for it. but they're trying to keep it from actually working. and in a district like i have, this is a way those folks can go and have insurance for their families. and so it's frustrating to me when they were talking about, you know, fingerprinting. you know, under state law maybe my insurance agents are fingerprinted and do background checks, i'm not sure. but it's not in the federal law to do that. and so in the state of texas, that's not an issue. now, insurance agents may be able to, but we don't hold these navigators to a higher standard than the federal law is. again, they really don't want the navigators to sign people up who come in. it's also, i would be offended if i had to ask my insurance agent, by the way, do you have a background check? you know, that's just amazing that some of my colleagues would do it. but again, their point is they don't like the law, and they're trying to stop -- use any way they can to discredit it.

but it is working. we're doing more events in our district because we want that outreach to be there. one of the questions about the navigators being paid incentives, i'm looking at exhibit number 4 on page 10. navigators are paid a base wage of $10 an hour with the expectation of meeting basic performance guidelines, they'll have the opportunity to earn $200 more per quarter if they beat 300 enroll m screenings. federally qualified health center employees, i know in my district actually they have positions to be able to sign people up. we're talking about some of the folks who make some of the lowest wages that we can imagine. and it sounds like, to me, it'd be a republican thing to incentivize them to actually go out and do it correctly. and that's what i think that, you know, welcome to congress. but let me talk a little bit about one of the issues that have come up, and i've heard it a lot. on the floor last week, we were

forced to vote on a bill that would force the hhs ig to take the unprecedented role of certifying marketplace verification systems before people could get financial assistance. when an individual applies for financial assistance through the marketplaces, what steps are taken on the front end to verify that they're not underreporting their income in order to get financial assistance? >> we check against available sources of data including internal revenue service data, social security administration data, and if necessary, private employer data through a database that's also part of that system to -- >> so you have an irs database, and you also can be checked against equifax, for example. so there is up front verification. what about on the back end? if an individual's taxes at the end of the year indicate they're not eligible for that financial assistance, what do they have to

do? >> the irs is going to require that they reconcile that at the end of the tax year, and if he was to pay -- if they have to pay money back, they'll have to pay money back. >> are well, and i know the last thing folks want to hear is the irs is going to audit you because you claimed less income than you actually earned. is there a penalty for them -- i assume under irs regs there's probably a penalty that would be added not only to the taxes, but to the penalty. >> it says right on the application it's being provided under penalty of perjury if it's done, you know, intentionally. >> my republican friends have repeatedly asserted the aca would be rife with fraud and suggested people would be lining up to get financial assistance. first of all, the financial assistance provided through the marketplace can only be used to purchase health insurance. >> that's right. >> it's not correct they get a direct cash assistance or sent to people's homes, that's

incorrect? >> the money goes directly to the insurance company -- >> the carrier. >> yep. >> and since they won't even see the money, it would be credit applied against insurance premiums, it seems unlikely people are out there waiting to profit from this program and to put money in their pockets when they won't even see the money. can you tell us about the uninsured who are using the exchanges in particular and, again, state of the texas we have to have a national exchange. and i appreciate other states who took the incentives on their own, but i'm also know hhs is supposed to put more resources in the states that don't have a state partner. so i appreciate that coming to texas. in particular, i want to address the allegation that i heard that people who buy insurance in exchanges are fraudsters and deadbeats. is there any information on that? all people are looking for is to be able to cough their families in -- cover their families in health care. >> they just want to take care of themselves and their families, that's right. >> thank you, mr. chairman. >> thank you, mr. green.

ms. elmers, you're recognized for five minutes. >> thank you, mr. chairman, and thank you, mr. cohen, for being with us again. i think you said this is the seventh time, is that correct? >> not before this committee, obviously, but, yes. it's the seventh time i've testified since december. >> on the hill. >> yep. >> okay. well, first off, i do want to go back to one of the comments that you made about how you believe that there is competition that is being created amongst the insurance companies with the exchanges. you know, very recently i believe, as recent as last week, in north carolina in my district, first carolina care insurance company announced that they will not be part of the exchange. they supply health insurance to thousands in my district. this means less options for my constituents, and now i believe for north carolina there are only two insurance companies. how does this provide competition? >> so the results are different from state to state. in states we've seen new

entrants coming in and a lot of choice, and in other states we've seen less. >> okay. >> as i think you probably know, the existing market is extremely highly concentrated in some states. >> okay. so but for my -- reclaiming my time, for my north carolina constituents, though, we'll have less competition. >> i don't know what's available to them -- >> let's move on because they live in north carolina. i'd like for you to move to exhibit 7, and this is part of the approved application process. now, in exhibit 7 it says that the applicant basically is going to spend money on participant incentives by purchasing and giving out gift cards to obtain consumer feedback on assistance provided and consumer among from the satisfaction -- knowledge from the statistics of the event. do you believe this is an appropriate use for the navigators to entice individuals with gift cards?

>> well, it doesn't sound as though it's enticing, it sounds as though they want to get feedback, and in order to encourage people to get -- i know -- >> so are you sure that the idea of the gift card, i mean, so they would get -- you know for sure that they would be, you know, basically given the information and then you don't see that as enticement? >> that's what it looks like to me from here, but i can check. >> just to clarify, you don't believe this is enticement. >> it doesn't look like it, no. >> okay. well, i would like to go back to a couple of the other issues. you know, now we've seen repeatedly that a there are many questions based on the letter that we put out asking the navigators -- and of course, you know, those on the other side of the aisle are saying that this is, you know, intimidation and certainly they have quoted me as well, and i don't believe that congress asking questions and

doing oversight is intimidation at all. we are charged with making sure that taxpayer dollars are utilized correctly. and i know that oversight is very important more you as well. you know, i'd like to also go to the point here where it says in a response -- and i'd like to submit this for the record although we have it -- that, basically, hhs reported that we trust that a our responsibility addresses your questions about the navigator program and the guidelines and controls in place to monitor the work of the awar dees. now, there are a number of these situations where you're going to be getting back to us with answers, is that correct? some of the different applicants, the questions that have been posed to you. it's unclear at this point how it's being implemented, and you've repeatedly said you would get back with information and written statements. >> right. and i have no objection or question whatever about a program directed to us. >> okay. so do you not see that as a

basis for delay at this point, that we would just continue to move on with this process each though it's very, very unclear as to how these applicants are really going to be utilizing good, hard-earned taxpayer dollars? >> no, i don't. >> so you believe that we should continue as is. >> absolutely. >> regardless of being able to report back to congress on this issue so that we can make sure that the taxpayers of this country know that their dollars are being utilized. >> i don't think that your questions are a basis for delay -- >> so if i were, i am a taxpayer, obviously. so if you were speaking to one of my constituents right now, a little lady that lives down the street from me, would you say based on all of these questions that have been posed that her taxpayer dollars are being utilized well? >> absolutely. and i would -- >> okay. thank you. well, you've answered my question. but i would also like to submit for the record to the point about the issue of undermining

and, you know, being aggressive in this effort. there's an article in the business journal, thursday, september 12,2013, and i would like to submit this for the record -- >> without objection. >> -- where my be office actually reached out to randolph hospital who is a navigator applicantee, and let me just read a quote from them: from my perspective and the hospital's perspective, we just see this as they're doing their due diligence and making sure the organizations that receive these funds are going to be used and the funds in the manner in which they were intended said devon griffith, support services in randolph. we don't foresee this as being a problem. thank you very much. i yield back the remainder. >> gentlelady yields back. and now our new member be, mr. yarmouth, is recognized for five minutes. >> thank you, mr. chairman, i appreciate the court is si of the committee, and i'm very honored to be part of the committee even though it appears i just joined a game of trivial

pursuit when we're worried about gift cards. before i get into one line of questions here, i'd like to plug my home state of kentucky. kentucky has embraced the affordable care act, our governor has taken the opportunity to provide insurance to 640,000 cayennes who are currently uninsured. we have an exchange that, i think s a model for the country, kynect, and one of the great ironies is during our state fair last month, kynect had a woot, a lot of -- booth, and after talking to the people they walked away many of them saying, wow, this is a lot better than obamacare. [laughter] so that's kind of what we're dealing with. there have been a couple comments earlier today that related to moves that certain corporations have made, and republicans have pounced on them as kind of making an argument that they were somehow precipitated by the affordable

care act and somehow resulted in a negative outcome. one of them is ups. ups is not based in my district, but the global hub is there. they're our largest employer. so when i heard about the fact that they were asking those employees who had spouses who were eligible for coverage through another employer to take their coverage there and they were going to stop providing feint coverage to them -- dependent coverage to them, that this was smu something that the affordbl care act forced them into. republicans pounced on that, my senator, mitch mcconnell, did. so i talked to the representatives about this and they actually said, no, we're very upset about the way republicans have used this because what the affordable care act did was allow us to make this business move -- which a number of companies have done -- and preserve our coverage at current rates and current contributions for our members, for our employees, about 15,000 out of the 770,000 lives that

they insure. so it basically was nothing that that the affordable care act did that resulted in a negative outcome. but my question to you, mr. cohen, is before the affordable care act could ups have done what they did? >> you know, i'm not familiar with that particular circumstance, but i don't believe so. >> but ups could have dropped their coverage entirely before the affordable care act. >> of course. >> ups could have made my changes they wanted to -- >> yes, yes, yes. >> -- could have provided ip fear your coverage, anything they wanted to. >> correct. >> and we all know that, i think most of us know, when president obama said if you like your coverage, you can keep it, what he meant was that nothing in the affordable care act would force an employer to change their coverage. not that there might not be changed. in fact, some might be an improvement. and the issue of walgreens was mentioned earlier today. walgreens hassedded to set up -- has decided to set up a private

exchange for its employees, not shoving them into exchanges, but -- into government exchanges. so they've just chosen to make an alternative arrangement for providing insurance for their 160,000 employees, isn't that correct? have that's what i understand. >> and when they announced it, they said the reason we wanted to do that is because of the private exchanges, we can actually take, expand the options that were available more our employees. right now they said there are only two high deductible plans, so we can improve their situation. so you could actually make an argument, i think, and i'll make the argument that because of the affordable care act and the creation of exchanges and the success that the exchanges seem to have project in terms of increased competition, rowerring costs -- lowering costs, that gave walgreens an opportunity to improve the situation with their employees. would you agree you could make that argument? >> i agree. and i think it's important to recognize that for many, many

years employers have been struggling with the ever-increasing costs of health care and insurance. double-digit increases. and what we've seen in the last few years are significantly lower increases in the cost of health premiums, and i think we'll continue to see that even more when the affordable care act is fully implemented and there's a lot less uncompensated care that all businesses have to pay for in their rates because more people will have coverage. >> okay. and as a reminder, when we go back to the year that this law was being debate inside 2009, increased premiums for businesses were going up in places as high as 38%. i think in california blue cross blue shield said everybody's getting a 38% increase. we've seen a dramatic improvement since that time. >> that's right. >> yeah. thank you very much for your testimony. mr. chairman, thank you very much. i yield back. >> gentleman be yields back and now to dr. gingrey for five minutes. >> mr. chairman, thank you. mr. cohen, i'm going to read out

to you some statistics which you may or may not agree with, but a number of years ago the united states census bureau came out with an estimate of 47 million people, 47 million people in this country without health insurance. today got this information base -- they got this information, basically, by calling and saying do you have health insurance, yes or no? if they had just lost their job and been off of health insurance for one week, the answer was no. if the call had been received two weeks later, the answer very well may have been yes. so 47 million people without health insurance is one thing, but if it were for a full year without health insurance, that would be a horse of an entirely different can color. different color. and in that 47 million, let's

just assume there really were 47 million people who went uninsured for a full year. 18 million of those people make more than $50,000 a year. 18 million of the 47. 10 million, it's estimated, of those 47 million are in this country all legally. 14 million are l jill for a safety net program, schip, medicaid. they just don't bother to fill out the paperwork. or maybe they don't know, maybe they haven't been informed. but when you get right down to it, there are probably no more than 8-10 million people in this country that do not have health insurance because they're nearly poor. they're not eligible for medicare, they're not eligible for medicaid. so the number was so grossly inflated, and so when i hear from the other side of the aisle

that we republicans are totally opposed to this bill, well, yeah, we were. and that's one of the main reasons we were. now, another statistic, 1950 the average individual spent $500 a year on health care. in 2006, the latest year that i have statistics for, the average individual probably spent $7,000 a year for health care. but look at the life expect tan is si. the life expectancy in 1950 was the late 50s. the life expectancy in 2006, 2007, indeed today is 80 years old practically. so the value -- yes, health costs in this country is too high, and we need to constantly fight to lower it, find ways to

eliminate waste, fraud and abuse, anything that a we can do to bring it down. but what is the value of each additional year of a person's life because of what we have done -- yes, because it's costly, but that's because of research and development, durable medical equipment, medical devices, well-trained physicians, superspecialists, outstanding drugs, antibiotics, sixth generation now because of the gain act. so of course we were opposed to this bill. now look, let me get directly to a question for you. in two weeks the rules say that the sign-up period on the exchanges commences. will individuals be able to sign up for a health insurance plan on october 1st, 2013? >> yes, consumers will be able

to sign up for a health plan beginning on october 1st. >> they will actually be able to pick a plan whether it's is sigma, aetna, blue cross, blue shield, platinum, gold, bronze, whatever? they will be able to do that on october 1st? >> that's my expectation based on what i am told will be in place on october 1st, yes. >> thank you. and this will be my last question because i'm out of time. most of obamacare is based on the premise that by be forcing young people into the market, they will help lower the cost for the older and sicker individuals. but because the penalty so weak, there's a real problem if all those young people don't show up. and i'm afraid they won't. in my home state of georgia, the insurance commission be announced that for the average 27-year-old no longer on their parents' policy, out of basement, living on their own, premiums are set to rise anywhere from 85-198. it seems that a $95 penalty

would do little to incent young people like that to purchase coverage when faced with huge, huge premium increases. mr. cohen, a lot of the premise of obamacare is based on getting these young people to enroll. to help broaden the pool, lower the costs for the older and sicker. have you heard anconcerns that because the penalty for obamacare so weak, young people may stay out the program in the first year, and if they do opt out, what will this do to the cost of the others? >> so, yes, i have read things, you know, speculating that the penalty is low and will not be a reason for people to sign up, but i think our research shows that most people want health care, and the barrier has been the cost, and that with subsidies the coverage will be affordable, and it will be high quality care, and we are looking forward to people -- including young people -- enrolling in

coverage. >> mr. chair, thank you for your indulgence, i yield back. >> mr. griffith's back, but he's going to yield first to mr. shimkus and then mr. griffith. mr. shimkus, you're recognized. >> well, thank you. i thank my colleague. i want to thank the chairman for letting me sit in, i'm not on this subcommittee, and i want to thank the ranking member. mr. cohen, welcome. you're trying to do the job presented the you, and this is a tough committee, so let me ask a couple questions. be because i've been trying to get my, you know, just like -- regardless of how we feel on the law, if it, if nothing changes and it gets enacted, a members of congress are going to be, we're going to have to address our constituents' concerns and deal with that. so what i've tried to do is a couple things. i've tried to meet with my grantees. i have met with one, but some are not making themselves available to me. and i'm not tining it to --

doing it to, i'm just trying to get information. so i don't know what we can do from the administration's perspective to encourage the grantees to talk to the elected members of congress in the regions a that heir going to represent. that they're going to represent. but i would personally appreciate it because i'm trying to develop a relationship because constituents are going to come to us. they do for medicare, they come to us for medicaid, they do for social security, veterans affairs. that's part of our job, and i just need help. so i just say that as a member appealing to the administration. >> so i think we'd like to work with you on our process for getting you the information that you want and, you know, and are entitled to that won't be disruptive of the work that needs to be happening particularly at this particularly critical moment when they're just getting ready to start their work. >> yeah, and i get it. i mean, because be i did meet with one, and it was very helpful. the other request i have is

we've asked if we can get especially our staff member who deals -- most of us have constituent service people many our congressional districts. i have one that she's an expert now on medicare and medicaid. i have another one who's an expert on veterans affairs. we've put forth a request to say can i get this person trained, can they sit through the training? yes. we were told no. >> you were told no by? >> i can get you the answers, but we were told we can't -- they wouldn't allow us to be trained. >> doesn't sound right to me. >> that's fine. all i want -- i want my staffer to know as much information to me as they can as they're going to have to deal with this. hopefully not -- >> no, absolutely. >> my guess is they might have to deal with this. so when i talked to the one grantee, this was a point that they made. they've got 33 navigators,

they're all dispersed throughout health care. we kind of, we vetted that out in this hearing today. but they only have two slots for training, there's a 20-hour, i mean, an online training, i've learned that much, and then -- i'm from illinois -- so there's a two-day training, probably an overnight, and that's a kind of where we were researching to get our staffer involved in both those trainings. but the -- >> has the state required training? >> yeah. that's why i'm trying to figure it out. >> so, but my, my point is this one grantee will before the operational date of october 1st will only be able to get two of his individuals through the training. i'm just -- i can tell you, i don't want to air, you know, but i'd be glad to talk to you -- >> if our folks could get in touch with your staff, i'd be

very happy to look into that. >> and then he also, they also raised the issue that getting a clearance for these people is the state of illinois providing clearance, they will not be ready to handle this information because of the clearance process. so i, i'm just using this opportunity to show you some of the concerns that i have. and i'm very concerned, because i want to -- i don't like the law, i voted against the law, but i know i'm going to get calls about how we can help my constituents, and i want to be ready to do that. >> so i appreciate that very much. i have to say that i am concerned that some states have put in requirements which they're entitled to do. i mean, we, you know, but that are making it a little bit more difficult for the navigators to get ready in time for october 1st. so maybe we can work with you and try to work through some of those issues. >> with i would appreciate it, let me just go to the final question. it was kind of based upon listening to testimony today about whether you're going to go

door to door. i don't have a dog in that fight, but i am concerned that as we have people who are trained and qualified that we have a process that someone go back to a government web site and is say they're legit, they're not legit. have you all considered putting a list of names of the navigators on adot.gov site or something? ..

>> thank you, mr. chairman. i appreciate that very much. let me follow up on that. it might be good to get these folks ideas. in this morning's bluefield daily telegraph at about door-to-door skimmers looking for prescription drug information. i know you can't stop the bad actors out there, but we have a group running around and pass while county, virginia pertaining to beat the apalachee for seniors. even though you tell folks they are not door-to-door, the word to some people will do door to door. i now draw your attention to exhibit two and a notice in that proposal, in the second paragraph, it says they propose going door to door. so even some of the proposals and the people who are supposed to be doing this apparently have been misunderstanding they are supposed to go door to door. one of the other questions i had an uncle that to exhibit two so

keep that open. the state bureau of insurance approved acceptable plans at the end of july. it was their assumption they would have some information right now. they added this morning to not know whether there plans -- because general is going at the federal exchange state bureau of insurance with an implant that that were approved. they haven't heard anything back. as of this morning. they don't know whether these plans will be approved or not, so i ask you to check on that, please think it is so because we've got seven business days left to go in the state of virginia does not know what plans are going to be approved. >> i absolutely will. that surprises me because i know we've been with the states on a regular basis. >> another concern in this happens in rural areas i'm sure is that there is not going to be competition in 10 of jurisdictions i represent.

they see there only one child plan world that one individual plan and five of those jurisdictions. the counties that can uncover grayson, lee, scott and the city of bristol. there's only one shot plan and one individual plan. a lot of that humans don't have a whole lot of choices to choose from and obviously there is a monopoly that may affect prices as well, wouldn't you think? that being said, i will point you back to exhibit two. just so you'll know, we are looking at this. you'll see on the first page the project abstract for the navigator is going to cover two counties, one of florida, one in texas. on the next page you'll see further the application says they have the exchange navigators. and you have to follow through we've done the math for you. i time is running outcome is why way will lead you through this and ask you to comment. on the next page camille c. enrollment goals and the state in the second bullet point that they want enrollment goals of 75

voters trying to reach and may indicate that through provision of literature, et cetera, a total of 288,780 by the end of the program you are a total of 527,700. and so what we've got is a navigator in the air, in their statement, saying that somebody in your office approved that they are going to enroll 577,000 people plus by the end of the year and that works out to 11,500 enrollees per navigator. when you take that 577,500 people and divided by 50 navigators. these are the folks who were not only going to do fairs and so forth, but we're going to go door to door. do you really believe that one navigator can enroll 11,500 people, taken the time they had originally to the end of the

year? looks like it's 31 people today counting weekends and holidays. that's not very realistic, is it? iodine doorknocking before and a lot of voter outreach. to reach that many people today and actually get them to say yes is not an easy accomplishment. >> so i would say, this is clearly a proposal an application that was approved. this green tea was approved. they got a grant. there is a budget process that happens as part of that approval. i can't tell you. i will commit to find out more information about this green tea if you like. i can't tell you if this is how it ended up or if there were any changes. i don't feel comfortable commenting on it because i literally am just seeing it now. >> i understand. if you could give me comment later, i would appreciate that very much. these are concerning numbers. and obviously, there were some

people out there thinking they are supposed to go door to door and that is a concern because some people go door to door, and makes it much easier for senior citizens to evict themselves a pat actors. people are coming by and the next thing you know they find out whether or not they have prescription drugs. but they do apparently in a particular county or the sheriff here is the go back and rob the house and they're more interested to get the drugs in the tvs. they are trained to find out which of the private targets. that is of concern. i will also tell you, we are having a real problem with the doctor shortage in the commonwealth of virginia about people in the eastern part of the state. i don't represent that particular part of virginia and i will tell you recently one of my hospitals closed. her number one reason was upon the care and the aspects are the cuts to medicare, the double

scissor, where the states under the original plan was supposed to, but didn't have to. the supreme court ruling expand medicaid and the final straw is the war on coal, which thus ensure people in the final straw was they couldn't get doctors to staff the hospital is an adequate fashion. so now i have folks traveling an hour to an hour and a half for cardiac care. i'm very concerned about the people in my district and whether they will get adequate health care under this obama health care program. i also hope to educate us on how to enroll people because we will get calls. >> the gentleman's time is expired. and with that, mr. cohen, we appreciate you coming before this committee again today. i ask unanimous consent that the opening statements, while they be introduced into the record and without objection is to be entered into the record. i also ask innocents than from a

subject to appropriate reductions by staff. i asked for unanimous consent to put an article into the record in the business journal dated september 12, 2013. so without objection some order. again, mr. cohen, thank you for coming. we appreciate your time there spends two members request for assistance for their staff and others providing information. the testimony you another numbers that last year the devotion today, the committee rules provide that members have 10 days to submit additional questions for the record. with that, this hearing is now adjourned. >> thank you. [inaudible conversations] >> democratic women, jackie speier can be for the floor before about to get ready $9 million to the food stamp program. she criticized the cuts and her colleagues for receiving food allowances while they travel

overseas. >> mr. speaker, thank you. you know, in my district, california 14, we have about 4000 counties in the war on food stamps. but some of my colleagues at thousands and thousands more. yet, they somehow feel a crusaders, like heroes when they vote to cut food stamps. some of these same members travel to foreign countries under the guise of official business. they dine at lavish restaurants, eating steak, vodka and even caviar. they receive money to do this. that's right, they don't pay out of pocket for these mails. let me give you a few examples. one member was given $127.41 a day for food on his trip to

argentina. he probably had a fair amount of state. another member was given $3588 for food and lodging during a six-day trip to russia. he probably drank a fair amount of vodka and probably even had some caviar. that particular member has 21,000 food stamp recipients in his district. one of those people, who was on food stamps, could live a year on what this congressman spent on food and lodging for six days. another 20 members made a trip to dublin, ireland. they got $166 a day for food. these numbers didn't pay a dime. they received 50, 100, almost $200 for a single meal, only for themselves. yet for them the idea of helping

fellow americans spend less than $5 a day makes their skin crawl. the families of veterans, farmers, disabled, working are not visible to them, not even when they are their own constituents. last week a man named robin sheikh wrote in an article on his link page about food stamps. rahm is the founder, chairman and ceo of panera bread. ms he admitted despite wanting to fight poverty and hunger in america, he really didn't know what it was like to be truly hungry. and so, this week rawness taking this tough challenge. good millionaire food local is living on $4.50 a day. i've taken a snap challenge in the past and i can tell you, it is a horrible experience. you think about food constantly. you are always hungry.

but those on food stamps live on $4.50 every day. not for one week, for long into the future. that is soul crushing. historically, food stamps have been part of the farm bill. it is that same bill that 26 corporate farmers who remain nameless get a million dollars each in subsidies than for real farmers. but taxpayers are given $7 billion per year to large agribusiness, yet republicans feel snap programs cost us too much money. they want to cut it. mr. speaker, i could stand here and say my point is about saving food stamps from cuts. that is true. but my larger point is about us as a country. as a society, as neighbors. i am a member of the least productive congress in the history of this country. i am ashamed of that.

to be honest, if the federal government shut down for a couple of weeks as we keep hearing, would americans even notice? when a government of the people or for the people becomes a government in spite of the people, then who are we really serving. if we refuse to take care of those who are the most vulnerable at a tiny fraction of the cost of say our defense budget, don't we cease to be true public servants? ronna sheikh is putting himself in the worn-out shoes with 48 land fellow americans. i'm ready to do the same again. i wonder how many of my republican colleagues who want to cut food stamps if they had taken a snap challenge. after all, that means no more steak, no more caviar or vodka. based on these numbers even inhabits, i wonder if they could survive. i yield back.

>> the house yesterday when not to reduce funding for the food stamp program yesterday. the vote was 217 to to 10. house members to gavel into debate funding for it fun and pass a september 30 deadline. it would defend the nation's health care law. but expects to happen about 11:00. you can see live coverage on c-span when they begin their day at 9:00 a.m. about one minute from now. life to the national press club or epa administrator, gina mccarthy will be talking. she testified before the house on energy and power on the same topic, where she said if left unchanged, climate change will be devastating to future generations and the earth. we expect remarks or epa administrator mccarthy in a moment. live coverage here on c-span 2. [inaudible conversations]

>> good morning and welcome to the national press club. my name is angela grayling can come a reporter for bloomberg news on the 106th president of the national press club. we are the world's leading professional organization for journalists, committed to our profession's future through our programming with the event such as this while fostering a free press worldwide. for more information about the national press club, please visit our website at press.org. to donate to programs during national press club journalism institute, please visit press.org/institute. on behalf of members worldwide to my day to welcome her

speakers and those of you and our audience. our head table includes guest of her speakers most journalists who are club members. and if you hear a pause in the audience i don't members of the general public are also attending. it is not necessarily evidence of a lack of journalistic objectivity. i would also like to welcome our c-span on public radio audiences. you can follow the action on twitter using hash tag npc lunch. after our guest speaker includes, we will have a question-and-answer period. i will ask as many questions as time permits. now it's time to introduce our head table. from your right, mark trajan, reporter for bloomberg news. the loveless, host of plots energy week. margaret ryan, u.s. correspondent for interfax natural gas report. harold wagner, president and ceo of the american lung association. mike soren for energy reporter.

kenneth mccarry, has been a very speaker. [laughter] skipping to the podium. chairwoman of the national press club speakers committee and project manager for social and state and as for the center for public integrity. skipping over the speaker for a moment, rod carew grow a freelance editor and the national press club speakers committee member who organized today's breakfast. thank you, rod. reverend mitch has caught on the president and ceo of the evangelical environmental network. deborah deborah franco, environment correspondent. claire per card cambridge, spirit chief for argus media, which produces daily. and bob keefe, senior press secretary for the natural resources defense council. [applause]

barely two months ago, after 136 days of delay and wrangling the senate critics as well as answering more than 1000 questions, our guest today was confirmed as the 13th administrator of the environmental protection agency. gina mccarthy was already familiar with the agency she now has. she served since 2009 is epa's assistant administrator for air and radiation. despite a background that included reading efforts on environmental issues for republican governors in massachusetts and connecticut, our guest today could only muster six republican votes in the senate for confirmation. that may not be surprising given she is the point person to carry out president obama's pledge from his second inaugural address to quote, respond to the threat of climate change, knowing failure to do so would betray our children and future generations. to many senators that was the president's latest articulation

of a so-called horror on costs and economies of state to depend on production and use to generate nearly 40% of the nation's electricity. on june 25th, president obama double down, directing epa to issue by today, regulations to address the emission of greenhouse gases from new coal and natural gas fired power plants. the intense of the expected backlash to the proposal was on display wednesday when our speaker. before a skeptical and at times hostile group of lawmakers on the house energy and commerce committee. administrator mccarthy assured members of the panel that coal would continue to play an important role in generating electricity for years to come. if that's true, it may be less about the details of the epa proposal but the fact that coal generation is being displaced by natural gas and the witches being discovered and produced as a record rate because of technology such as hydraulic fracturing. with administrators mccarthy regulations, the boston needed

kayaks and red sox and has spoken about the thrill of getting to yell play ball at fenway park. please help me give a warm national press club welcomes to environmental protection agency administrator, gina mccarthy. [applause] >> well, thank you mac, angela. i will tell you that it was a long way through the confirmation process, but boy was it worth it to get to be in this position and to work for and on behalf of the american public and the great people at epa. it's a wonderful agency and i am proud to be where i am today. i also want to tell you six republican votes i thought was pretty good. [laughter] maybe it is just me. i worked hard for the six votes. broad, thank you for all the

work you did in putting this together and for the head table today. good morning, everyone. i appreciate your coming as well. less than three months ago, president obama stood outside in sweltering heat to unveil a new national plan to confront the growing threat of climate change. he delivered, in my opinion, one of the most important speeches of his presidency. i will admit i am a little biased, but in those 45 minutes, the president laid out not only a vision, but a plan for protecting our kids and our families from pollution and fighting the threat of climate change. he called on agencies across the federal government, including the epa to take action to cut carbon pollution, to protect our country from the impacts of it already changing climate and to lead the world in this effort. and he asked us one very important question that we all need to ask ourselves.

do we have the courage to act before it is too late? how we answer that question will have a profound impact on the world that we leave behind for our children. the president called on the epa to take action and we have responded. frankly, why wouldn't we? our job is to protect public health and to protect the environment. epa is in fact the only agencies solely focused on delivering clean-air, clean water and a safe and healthy environment to american families. for more than 40 years, epa had done its job well with honor and with great distinction. for more than 40 years, epa has worked tirelessly, hand-in-hand, reaching out, understanding and developing the best science available and being transparent in our decision-making. we've done our job, as i said,

with working with everyone from states to businesses to ngos and anyone in between, to ensure that we progress in a way that is sensible and that addresses issues reasonably and sensibly across all regions of this country. the overwhelming judgment of science tells us that climate change is real, that human activities are fueling that change and we must take action to avoid the most devastating consequences of climate change. we all know that this is not just about melting glaciers. climate change caused by carbon pollution is one of the most significant public health threats of our time. that's why epa has been called to action. and that is why today's action -- why today's action is so important and why we really need to talk about it.

not just this morning, but when you go home in your own communities. it is a subject that deserves to be brought up in the as seriously as we can in our everyday lives. so let me explain why it is so important and why it is so important to epa in public health. climate change is really about water. it's about clean, reliable sources of drinking water. it's about aging water and wastewater treatment facilities that end up overstress and flooded, during all these extreme weather events. it is about mudslides. it is about storm surges, from pounding rains and it's about sewers that back up and overflow. it is about inadequate storm water systems that let pollution attack sensitive ecosystems, like our wetlands and estuaries that threatened our fish and

wildlife. it is about all of these impacts adding up, spoiling the beauty and vitality of some of this country's most iconic water bodies that threaten our safety and livability of our communities. climate change is also about heat waves and drought. droughts that drive up food prices, that threaten our food supply as well as our manufacturing operations that rely on water every day to run their businesses. and climate change is about wildfires. wildfires like recent ones in the southwest. fires that in 2012 alone scorched more than 9 billion acres across eight states. that is an area more than two and a half times the great state of connecticut. think of all of that property damage, the lives lost, the forests destroyed, dear pollution caused by these fires.

desert landscapes. if the communities and lives that risks. climate change is also about the spread of disease. warmer temperatures contribute to the rise of small creatures like mosquitoes and ticks. now they are bytes may not seem terribly, but they spread diseases like west nile virus and limes disease. farther and wider as the climate changes. and most importantly, climate change is about clean and healthy air for all of us to breathe. it is about health. carbon pollution and hotter weather can lead to longer allergy seasons, increased heat related deaths and direct threats to those who suffer from chronic lung and heart diseases. we all know that rising temperatures bring increased smog. so let me drill down on this one issue just a bit.

epa has been studying and regulating pollution that is to ground-level ozone or what we call smog for decades. we know this issue. one thing we know for sure is that when the weather gets hotter, smog gets worse and people of all ages suffer. my guess is that many of you know someone who is the fact that by smog. smog makes it harder to believe ben's too many of us have health challenges by smog can make worse. take daniel dolan laughlin, for example. daniel is a retired railroad executive from wheaton, illinois. he suffers from chronic obstructive pulmonary disease or copd. it is a life-threatening illness that affects lungs and the reps pretorius system. it's exactly the condition that can be made worse by smog.

luckily, daniel received a lung transplant and his health has improved significantly then when he was on death's door. but last year, when he felt a little better, daniel made the trip to epa to tell us his story and he did that because he wanted to make one specific ask of our agency. he asked us to take action on climate change because daniel understood how much climate change leads to increased air pollution, which could make respiratory illnesses, like the one he had been suffering from so much worse. unfortunately, daniel story is all too familiar. it is not just adults are the elderly who suffer from air pollution. in fact, it is about our pollution, especially children in lower income and urban communities. if your child doesn't need to

use an inhaler, then you are one lucky parent. because one in 10 children today in the united states live with asthma every day. i said that correctly. it is one in 10. when it comes to health concerns, don't your children always come to mind first? at the end of the day, that is what this issue, climate change, is all about. that is why epa cares about climate change and why we know we must take action now. that is why people from low income and environmental justice communities all across the nation are concerned about climate change. because those communities are often, and so often, most at risk when disaster strikes. that is why groups like numbs rison are speaking up against climate change and pollution to protect our children from those

dangers. that is by faith groups of all denominations are encouraging action. we must meet our moral obligations of the next generation and the stewards of our precious natural resources. it is those resources that provides the foundation for a house, for our well-being and gas for our economy. the president's climate action plan calls on federal agencies to take steady, sensible and pragmatic steps to cut the harmful carbon pollution that fuels our changing climate and to prepare for unavoidable impacts based on the climate change that is already happening and is inevitable. he also called on us to provide continued international leadership and to engage those issues more effectively so that the united states could leverage our action internationally so

that we could address a global challenge in a global wy but he also told us we need to continue to provide affordable and reliable energy for all. and that is why we are here today. we are here to announce that epa is taking one of those important steps with a proposal to limit carbon pollution from new power plants. power plants are the single largest source of carbon pollution. new power plants, both natural gas and coal fired could minimize their carbon emissions by taking advantage of available modern technology. these technologies offer them a clear pathway forward today and in the long term. so let me get to the details of the proposal just a bit. these proposed standards are the first uniform national limit on carbon pollution from new power plants. they do not apply to existing

power plants. now it might be well if i repeated that one more time so that everyone can hear it. these proposed standards are the first uniform national limits on carbon pollution from new plants. they do not apply to existing power plants. today's proposal does that separate national limit for new natural gas power plants and for new power plants. new large natural gas plants would need to meet a limit of 1000 pounds of co2 per megawatt hour, while new, smaller natural gas plants would need to meet a limit of 1100 pounds of co2 per megawatt hour. new coal plants would need to meet a limit of 1100 pounds of co2 per megawatt hour. coal plants could choose to also have some additional flexibility if they want to average their

emissions over multiple years by making a somewhat tighter limit. now, some of you may remember that we proposed standards for new power plants last year and you may be saying to yourself, why are they starting all over again? let me explain. we received extensive public comment on our last proposal. over 2 million comments to be exact. and on the earlier proposal, we generated considerable new data that came in through that comment. we understood more about what technologies were available. we understood how effective those technologies could be and we took a look at the recent trends in the power sector and we did with democracy demands. we paid attention. we read those comments. we thought about them. and we decided we needed to update the proposal.

and that is what today's proposal reflects. and we are very confident that the carbon pollution standards we are proposing today for new power plants are both flexible and achievable. they pave a path forward for the next generation of power plants in this country. the standards are flexible. they do set different standards for different types of power plants. that is what the data helps us to understand. the standards are achievable because they will secure a major public health and environmental protections. but they reflect the demonstrated performance of a variety of clean, home-grown tech allergies. technologies that are already entering the market and being given plants today. the standard set the stage for continued public and private investment in technologies that are so important. technologies like carbon capture and sequestration.

with these investments, technologies will eventually mature and become as common for new power plants as scrubbers have become for well control, existing plants today. if there is one thing i've learned over the course of my work in implementing the clean air act, it has been that power plants have really long lifespans. longer than mine even. sometimes 60 years or more, sometimes 70. but people are making decisions about how to build new plants today, which is one reason we need to act today. that is what makes standards for new power plants are very important and why this proposal takes the lead and teach about the cutting-edge technologies that increase efficiency and reduce waste. that translates into lower carbon emissions and more efficient, effective clean

energy. as always, epa is expecting that we will get lots of comments on this proposal and we will do what we did before and we look at each and every comment a thorough consideration. with all of this talk of cutting carbon pollution from new power plants, you are probably asking yourself, so what is epa doing about the pollution from existing power plants? well, let me explain a few things. first of all, addressing existing power plants is an important piece of the president's climate action plan and we are committed to that on reducing carbon emissions from existing plants as well. however, those proposed standards are on a longer timeframe. we plan to release a proposal for public comment in june of next year. that is june of 2014. we started the process already, in order to meet the timeline and the process started as one

that involves engagement with states, with local governments, with industry leaders, with ngos, with labor organization and businesses and others who want to weigh in. and we plan to be in very close consultation with the states. we have to ensure that any guidance that epa puts out in june of 2014 can translate into flexibilities to account for the differences among our state and among our regions. i can promise you that epa were follow the course that president obama charted in his speech in june. we want to get and we will get to a point where we are building partnerships with states, with local communities and with local leaders so that we understand the options available and the options that must be available to make an existing and

effective carbon reduction strategy. we can learn a lot from ongoing efforts to reduce carbon pollution. those efforts have moved us towards a cleaner more electricity generation already and we hope to build on their progress that is currently going on and frankly has been going on for years that the state and local level. in fact, 10 states are already participating in their own market-based programs to cut pollution from carbon. i should make sure that everybody knows when i say carbon, it is carbon. everybody sometimes looks at me and goes wide? i'll talk about cars later, too, which is power. 10 states are already participating in their own market-based programs to cut carbon pollution. more than 35 states have clean energy targets. more than 25 havarti set energy

efficiency goal is to their energy waste. and over 1000 mayors across the country have signed agreements to cut carbon pollution. clearly, states and local communities are doing their jobs as incubators of innovation. they are leading the way to cleaner, more affordable, more sustainable energy and they have proven that fighting climate change just makes good business sense. that's worth repeating. climate change just make good business sense. as the president has pointed out, more than 500 businesses, including gm and may keep called acting on climate change, and i quote, one of the great economic opportunities of the 21st century. we know that climate change and protecting our kids from harmful pollution is something that just cannot be solved overnight.

it is going to take a broad, concerted effort from all levels of government, as well as the private sector, as well as individuals reading here and dionne, as well as the international community. but make no mistake about it. epa's action today to address carbon pollution from new power plants is an important step forward in this long, clean energy journey. and it is a necessary step to address the public health challenge that we all simply cannot afford to avoid any longer. the good news is we can't successfully face issue of climate change, but only if we work together. we have proven time after time that fighting fair, clean air act standards to protect public health does not cause the sky to fall. the economy does not tumble.

in fact, we're arty scene aren't a saint in clean energy payoff. just this week, the department of energy were pleased to report that shows the cost of renewables are dropping while the use has grown. just last year, in 2012, the u.s. deployed almost twice as much wind as it did just the year before, working together with input from states, communities, tribes, industry and environmental advocates. we have grown our economy. we have driven innovation and we've created health care, safer, more livable communities to hand down to our children and our grandchildren. don't forget, because i will always remind you, under this president leadership, just a few years ago we established historic greenhouse gas fuel economy standards for passenger

vehicles. those standards will save consumers thousands of dollars at the pump. those standards did not cripple the auto industry. they made us stronger and they made it more competitive, by working arm in arm with industry, the united autoworkers consumer groups, environmental advocates and others, we got the job done and we got the job done right. with the support of the auto industry, we achieve standards that will cut carbon pollution from our cars in half by 2025. in the average driver will save more than $8000 at the pump over the life of those cars. far from the auto industry collapsing, it's actually thriving. over 300,000 jobs have been added in that industry allowed since the president of the united states rescued it from collapse.

40 years have clean air act history proves we can reduce pollution, while at the same time create jobs and strengthen the economy. the old rules might have said that we can't protect our environment and promote economic growth at the same time. you heard it and you heard it and you heard it. but in america, we have always sought out and used new technologies. we do science. previous research and development and we've use discovery to make those old rules obsolete. here in the united states, we have the know-how. we have the scale and we know we have the ingenuity to take on the challenge of climate change. we can't, we must turn this public-health and environmental challenge into an economic opportunity. as the president has reminded

us, all we need is the kurds to act. for me, i master that kerch every time i look into the wonderful faces of my three children. daniel, maggie and julie. in the end, this is really what this is all about for all of us. it is about our obligation to leave our children, a world that is as help reinstate as the one that we inherited. thank you very much. [applause] >> thank you. is that your proposal and effective ban on any new coal-fired power plants, given the fact that carbon capture and storage technologies are at this point not proven that expensive and not yet ready for primetime? >> who wrote that question quite

>> i don't know. [laughter] >> were they listening to my speech? clearly not. i really appreciate that question and i am actually glad it came up first because ccs is the technology that is feasible and it's available today. we know that. how do we know that? because it has been demonstrated to be effective. we know that it has been demonstrated and been actually constructed on real facilities today. not just unconventional facilities, but coal facilities. those unconventional and conventional coal facilities are being conducted in. they're being constructed in the designs are now available for others that are coming out. i think the coal industry and those investors have known that there needs to be a certain pathway forward for cool to be successful now and into the future. i believe this proposal, rather than killing future coal

actually sets out a certain pathway forward for coal to continue to be part of the diverse mix in this country. look, we know that coal is going to be part of the energy generation that we rely on substantially over the next two decades. why wouldn't we now acknowledge and invest in the kind of technologies that will allow coal a future long beyond that? the president has made a commitment to support a diverse energy supply because it helps us economically, domestically, as well as that protects us from some international concerns. we might as well invest invest today and said that pathway forward. we believe that this does not and we believe that this time you appeal to see that it's a reasonable, cost effective strategy as we move forward to keep cool in the energy mix.

>> to what extent, if any, did epa consider making for the coal industry or is that even legitimate during discussion? >> i will tell you that epa, and i am very proud frankly of the people who do this work, spend a great deal of time working with the industry themselves. we do it before, during and after will making. we do that for one reason, because epa, while we are solely looking at regulating pollution has to understand what kind of pollution reductions are achievable without doing significant damage to the companies that we are regulating. now we know when i've said before that our standards, rather than doing damage can actually promote an industry sector to grow. and what we did here in this proposal was we weren't strongly

with the utilities to understand what allergies were available. we will work with them so they understand what type of carbon capture sequestration will be necessary and at what level of because it is only going to be partial ccs, but it is going to get them prepared as time goes on to be competitive in a carbon constrained world. and we always, as epa, do wonderful cost-benefit analysis so that we can understand for the american people and lay it out in a public and transparent fashion so that they can understand the impacts of our rules from the public-health protection to the cost associated with it. and in this case, we think we have done exactly the right job at looking at what the science and data tells us and again, to make a sensible, reasonable step forward to address what is essentially one of the greatest public-health challenges of our

time, which is climate change. the >> he told the house energy and commerce committee just this week that coal will continue to be a significant source of energy in the u.s. for decades. what assurances do you have to offer to those that are skeptical of epa's notice? >> well, i think i've made our vote is pretty clear. epa's job is to look at environmental health and protection. we have implemented the clean air act in this action in the way we have looked at every other pollutant as we move forward. you know, epa doesn't have aspirations that are outside of the authority and the charge that congress has given us. we are simply applying the law as if that were intended to a pollutant that was regulated under the clean air act. but we've done what we've always done. we've taken look at how to be reasonable and rational, understand that the data is come

a look at technologies available and make sure that we craft our decisions in a way that is fully science-based, fully data-driven and is reasonable and rational. i am not making a statement with this rule, nor would we ever, about some independent choice about what fuels the like or don't like. we are looking at, as we always do, the ways in which we can reasonably reduce pollution under the clean air act with the authorities that congress has given us. >> what steps will epa take to ensure that electricity consumers won't be harmed? questioner asks you to explain technology and regional flexibility since some areas will feel more impact than others. the >> that is a good question. let me make a note for myself so i don't forget. in this rulemaking, we have to

keep in mind that this is about future power plants, new power plants. so really, we needed to understand what technologies were available and we need to make sure that we make a rule that took advantage of the most cost-effective technologies, given the fact that any investment of powerplant is going to be hanging around for a while. we are going to be living without plant in this technology choices for decades to come. now we don't think that that is a regional issue. we think that is just about how you build a new power plant in how you use the most effective technologies. however, when you look at flexibilities, when you look at two of the changes that you saw and the rule that is different from the regional proposal, one of them was on the natural gas side. if you look at the comments that came in under our proposal, there were questions and

concerns about the level we had originally proposed in whether or not some of the smaller natural gas unit that are used for peeking really cut operationally and effectively change that standard and a consistent way. we have to get up for discussion. we've established likely different standards that would give flexibility, recognizing operational issues. these are all technical discussions that we look at in great detail. the second thing we did with coal is we took a look at averaging periods that are applicable to these standards. the ones i have indicated, the 1100 pounds of co2 per megawatt hours a 12 month average. now what we also did was put in a flexibility for those facilities that would allow them to average over a seven-year period. now why did we do that? it is not because we thought we would get lower barbel protection because we won't. it still requires partial ccs to

put on that facility has its designed and constructed. we recognized with ccs may present a challenge out of the gate in terms of whether or not you understand how to operate effectively, whether or not you have the equipment and so we give flexibility to go to a slightly lower standard for the opportunity to have seven years to make the sister right for you. that should be plenty of time given that ccs is already technically feasible. a desire to available and it is being constructed and facilities today. >> whited epa decided to shorten the flexibility option from 30 years to seven years? >> is a good follow-on question. i don't know. no i'm kidding. [laughter] again, i think we learned from the data that came in during the

comment period, we began to understand that the type ologies were. i said before, we looked at the shift in the actual energy road was looking like. if you remember during the original proposal, we had 15 really different coal proposals that were out there. since the proposal, most of them are not getting funded and not moving forward. what we realized as the ones that are tracked in investment and the ones that will provide fuel diversity insurgency moving forward ones that actually install ccs. we understood that was a pathway forward. and while we were able to do was to get a much better handle on the kinds of adjustments that would need to be made. we got a better handle on how long it would take to address those issues and we found a way to provide flexibility without

losing the environmental protections that the original proposal had sought. so we are getting the environmental reductions at the same time as providing just the right flexibility we need to make this work for the industry. >> is questioner asks, did the revised proposal factor in the updated social cost of carbon values? >> yes. let me explain. let me hit this issue if you don't mind him a little bit more robustly because it has become an issue of concern. epa's job what we do rulemaking is to look at costs and benefits of our rules. and that means we are supposed to look at all of the benefits of the rules that we do and all of the cost to the extent that we can identify those through peer review processes. now, back in the prior administration in 2008, they did start looking at the cost of methane and factoring that into their rulemaking.

this did not begin with this administration. and that is because everybody recognized that carbon actually had a cost. i think we now know that the cost is a lot larger than we had originally proposed because when you reduce carbon, you are a factory and in their ability to address carbon pollution in the changes that the world is experiencing, relative to a changing climate. so when this administration came in, they then began another process to look at what is -- what science has happened since then. what does the modeling shows that the earlier cost of methane projections? we updated it and put it in a rule in 2010. there is a good technical document that is with a rule. i don't enter with an epa rule, but we put it out and it was a document that was produced by

the white house. omb and cea did a process. epa was participating in that. d.o.e. and other agencies. we put it out and had a good discussion, top of the comment on it and move that forward with the rules. so we have a new cost of methane. what it said is we were using nearly three of the model is that are always used most effectively to estimate climate impacts and said that as the models are updated in three years, we should look at this again because the information is changing the science comes in. that's how we do our business. that's what we did recently is we didn't update. you know why? because those miles were updated. we didn't change any inputs. we just listen to what peer-reviewed scientists and economists told us about what the real social cost of carbon is. india we put it out and apply a

standard recently and that is costing society, which is why i wanted to explain it to you a little bit more fully although it may be boring the heck out of some of you. it is an issue where they were transparent. it went very rulemaking process twice. it's been one now. it's a concern that we got the number wrong. but send comments then. the federal government makes decisions on the basis of peer-reviewed science, whether that is about public health consequences or economic consequences and we are always open. we provide technical information. we take comment, consider that make decisions. that's all this is. >> wended teepee expect to finalize the regulations being proposed today? >> well, the clean air act gives the state one year time frame. let me explain why that is. when this particular rule goes out, it really does send a

signal to the industry. it sends a signal to the market that if you expect to construct and start up a facility, then you need to pay attention to these particular standards because that is going to be or your obligation if they stay the same. so it really has an impact in the clean air act recognizes that and ask us to complete it within a year. now i will say that doesn't mean that over the course of the comment appeared we will pay attention and it might not be adjustments. but it does send a signal to the market right away and we are hoping that signal is that there is a way to build a coal facility that is clean and that can operate for a long period of time in a carbon constrained world. >> if the plan works and survive legal challenges, will that put an end to efforts in california and the northeast states for greenhouse gas emissions through a market-based approach? >> yes, it will.

i'm just kidding. .. how we begin to address the existing standards. the existing standard under the clean air act is done to lead to different. the standards do not think they can retrofit existing facilities by pointing the car carvin capture sequestration.

carvin capture sequestration is being designed in to these facilities which is why it is very appropriate to look at this technology in new facilities which is why i don't want you to look at this proposal and say i know what the epa is going to do. that is not correct. it's also a different legal process for existing facilities. new process sees is like the anticipate epa sets a standard we take comment, finalize the standard and then everybody complies. isn't life grand? it doesn't usually happen that way. but we hope. in the case of existing facilities, but we are really supposed to do is establish a direct line and then the challenges for the states to look at that guideline, look at their own facilities and send a plan back to the epa that ensures they can meet that plan and effectively reduce carbon in

a way that is sensitive to local concerns and to understand how electricity is being generated in those states so that we can all work together which is why we are announcing today is a series of meetings and engagements with states and local communities all across the region. with the business community and utilities. if you wonder why the epa is that every energy conference imaginable, this is it. we are going where people have information where we can understand the issues and develop a guidance that we put out in june. i will say that the queen air act in regard to this statute and many others requires that epa work with states as co regulators in these tasks. i am looking forward to that.

i have been one of those regulators for many years when i worked at the state level. in this instance, states and local communities have been far ahead of the epa and the federal government and understanding what actions make sense for them and how they can reduce the carbon from their electricity sector. we will go well with a great process that will explain the flexibility in the statute, that will explore those issues and provide certainty to the states that are already addressing these issues effectively that we are going to pay attention to those process these, some of which i play a pretty heavy handcrafting. i still think they are pretty good. and we made sure that we look at these reasonable differences in respect of the prophecies that are already in place. frankly, these discussions will give a wonderful opportunity to explain to the american public that they need not be afraid of

the actions that we should take to address the climate change. in fact he will be hearing from the mayors all across the u.s. that we recognize the recognitions who have taken huge leaps forward in looking at how they can become more efficient which has been a brilliant opportunity for them to shift money on paid energy bills and put it to school teachers instead. there are ways in which we can make this work for all the fuss and i.t. bachus process will highlight that. and i know the guidance we put out when we expect that progress moving forward. >> ccs technology isn't currently being used at a commercial scale power plant. what does the epa think technology is ready for use in the industry? >> let me explain to you -- i probably shouldn't explain to you why should let the technical people explain to you but let me

pretend to explain to you what ccs is. it has three components. it's the capture of the co2, the transportation of the co2 and the storage of the co2. there is no question the capture can be done effectively. the capture of co2 has been going on since the 1930's. we kind of know that. we know how to transport co2. we figure that out. it's happening today. there is actually a full-scale plant that is a gasification technology that is in operation today that has been using ccs said a full-scale that has been pulling out at percentage is much higher than our proposal is contemplating. and they have been doing it effectively for years. if there is no surprise about how to do this. that doesn't mean that over time

these technologies can get better. sequestration is one airy and we expect full advance. we know that the department of energy has resources the president has already announced. $6 billion resources that are going to continue to fund the development of these types of technologies. this is what is going to ensure we have a diverse energy supply in the future and i feel very confident that the information we have in this document will show that we've not only know how to do those three components but it has been demonstrated in facilities at the partial ccs capture the we are looking at and it is being planned and invested today and the challenge is to make sure we pay attention to that given sending a signal to the market about what kind of facilities the u.s. government and the the epa right now fix is going to be effective in this

carbon world. >> we have a couple questions about the project one questioner describes has vastly over budget. given the experience what are your conclusions about how economically feasible this will be? >> that's a good question. in case you don't know, the southern facility, southern company facility, i will tell you why can't speak to whether it is over budget. the one uniqueness that you need to understand that makes it not or if you are wondering a good model if ccs is going to be cost-effective and available. we have four facilities in the construction phase one of them as 75% complete this integrating into the design of that facility. but the tampa facility is very

unique not just in the fact that as ccs but it has other technologies that are being tested by southern a company's because they have some proprietary oversight over those technologies. so this isn't just ccs. it's the actual gas turbine that is different so there's a lot of things different about that facility which really tells me that there may be a lot more going on in ccs and its traditional way can be put on that for facility. >> one of the many questions about fracking so we'll take this one. what will your approach be to the enforcement of fracking and how does that fit with the policy you are announcing today about the existing power plants? >> it's a good question to the it's not the subject matter of

today but it's a good question. it's clearly related. this country has had an enormous increase in the amount of natural gas that is generated and how cost-effective and inexpensive natural gas has become. i think that is one of the reasons you are seeing quite a significant shift away from coal and investing in natural gas. i'm quite sure everybody is looking at. the fracking issue is one epa has been all over for carlisle. if you are aware we have an ongoing study that is 18 research projects all into one to look at the issues associated with fracking and we have the science to understand what the threat might be and whether or not there needs to be action and how that should be taken. i think the president addressed this issue in a couple different ways.

the first he told us to get a methane strategy and pulled all the agencies together to develop that. the thing many of you may not know is the epa has already regulated fracking. the reason we don't know is that nobody complained. what we said and understood is that methane is a fracking process and there's a lot of volatile organic compounds and those are air pollutants regulated under the clean air act and in order to address those we are requiring action throughout the sector to look at natural gas wells during the fracking process to make sure they either use the completions which are phase been and will be available in a few years which we capture the methane and then

it allows companies to make money because the product they are producing that is the major constituent of natural gas. it allows them to capture, so it doesn't contribute to what we know are significant air quality challenges that we are seeing in the western part of the state that we never saw before. so we have regulating industry from the air quality sidey effectively. actually it's not just cost effective. it's going to make some money. we've done that working with the state's hand-in-hand to make sure as they are regulating we don't duplicate the assets but take advantage so we are also advising states as they have challenges that come up and we are helping them understand if issues are rising and provide technical expertise but we are effectively looking at fracking in general from both water and the quality side and we know that is our obligation. again that is the epa obligation

to protect public health and the environment so we take it seriously on the natural gas side as we do regulating the emissions from coal. >> we are almost out of time that before the last question we have a couple housekeeping matters to take care of. i would like to remind you of our upcoming speakers september 26 we will have major mitch landrieu and philadelphia mayor michael nutter and on september 30 if education secretary arne duncan and november 11th president and ceo of the charles schwab corporation. second i would like to present our guest with the traditional national press club coffee mug. >> as long as it's less than $5 i accept. [laughter] >> we buy them in bulk for a very good price. [laughter]

one last question to the you are here at the national press club to the and we stand for government transparency and openness. a questioner asked now that you are administrator will you allow access to journalists including t. interview scientists and policy advisers? >> i would say epa always allows access to our scientists but if there are any issues we will talk. i appreciate your attention. [applause] thank you for coming today. i would like to thank the national press club staff and putting the journalism institute and broadcast center for helping organize today's event. finally here is a reminder you can find more information about the national press club at our web site and if you would like a copy of today's program you can

find it there as well at www.press.org triet thank you. we are adjourned. [applause] [inaudible conversations] we are live on capitol hill where education and business leaders are set to testify at a house education work force subcommittee hearing on improving technical education and career training programs. technical the education involves the teaching of more science and math with the goal of preparing individuals for highly skilled

jobs related to a specific trade. this is expected to explore ways the federal government can help support state and local initiatives. it is supposed to get under way in one minute to read it doesn't look like it's going to start right away. it will probably be delayed because of votes in the house. the house is about to vote on several bills one being watched most closely as the republican bill extending funding to the federal government until september 15th. current funding runs out on september 30th. this bill would remove funding from the nation's health care law. we will show you some of the auction on the house floor right now prior to this morning's hearing. >> we continue to fund the government while defunding the president's health care law and ensuring this country doesn't the fall on its debt.

while some might criticize this effort this is not a republican idea james says the president's health care law is destroying the middle class family and 40-hour workweek. it's like the president himself can acknowledge that mall that the senate author of the bill called the train wreck when the president said he wants to delay components of law but only for the privileged class, for those that can get access to the white house. we are fighting to get the relief to all american families. this is unworkable. it's coming jobs in america and causing people to lose good health care they have today. in louisiana alone our families are facing a 50% increase in premiums because of this law that is devastating our economy. it's not ready for prime time. the president even acknowledged it. he signed a seven bills to defund himself. it's time this house takes action and then the senate does their job and takes action as well. i yield back the balance.

>> the gentleman from kentucky reserves. the gentleman from new york is recognized. >> i am pleased to yield two minutes to the gentleman. stack the gentleman from oregon is recognized for two minutes. >> i appreciate the gentleman's courtesy. as i appreciate the hard work of the appropriations committee that has been placed and ann possible situation. we still have pending the bell. people are serious about cutting government spending and forcing the republican budget. we would be having appropriations bills on the floor, and we would be dealing with them. we are not because the appropriations committee was given an impossible challenge. they were given funding levels, but the house will never approve. that republicans in the house will never approve.

>> the subcommittee will come to order. thank you for joining for our hearing none technical education training programs under the technical the education act i would like to send a warm welcome to our witnesses whose testimony will be invaluable to to strengthen the law. the perkins act provides funding to states to support career and technical education or what we call in the business cpe programs that offer high school and community college students to gain the skills and and experience necessary in a broad range of fields including health care transportation, instruction hospitality and that is just to name a few. a number of state school districts and post secondary institutions have implemented exceptional programs. in massachusetts for example, were chester, sure i mispronouncing that being from the midwest, technical high school has partnered with tufts university for low-income families. the university funds a president

veterinarian to operate an on-site clinic at a high school and the technical students get to work at the clinic and obtain hands-on experience. we are fortunate to have with us today the principal who will share more information about this initiative during her testimony. to prepare the students for high demand jobs in my home state of indiana in the institute of technology offers automotive manufacturing welding and other specialized programs to allow students to meet the skills in just 40 weeks. in wisconsin dhaka which offers more than 60 career programs and putting in medical assistance program that provides students with real-world clinical let ministry deutsch and laboratory training. however, despite the shining examples, the bureau of labor statistics reports more than 8 million americans between the age of 16 to 24 still looking for jobs by strengthening the career and technical and education programs funded under the perkins act we can help more of these people gain an edge in the work force as we begin the

discussions on improving the act we must first assess the federal role in career and technical which addition to receive funding through the act the states must comply with a series of federal requirements some of which are duplicates to those in the work force invested act and the secondary education act. we cannot allow the federal mandates to make it harder for the states to offer the training opportunities that young people need. we must also discuss ways to ensure the programs are actually effective. states and schools must have the ability to coordinate with local business communities to implement programs that prepare students for in demand jobs. the course work should provide students with opportunities to obtain a relevant certificates, credits and hands-on experience that will allow them to integrate into the workforce. recognizing the success of the

cte programs depends on effective teachers we must examine the ways to help states recruit educators with technical knowledge and experience. in 2010 a release by the state directors of career in the technical education identified dozens of states to attract the teachers and federal sectors including sciences, manufacturing, agriculture and the rapidly growing fields. as we work to rebuild the economy strengthening career and technical the education programs will put more americans on a path to a prosperous future. the committee will discuss a range of proposals to include including those offered in president obama's blueprint to transform technical the education. i look forward to beginning that discussion right now. i would like to think the witnesses and i would yield to my colleague from arizona for his opening remarks. >> thank you. this is important to initiate a

discussion about this important component of education and the country. today's hearing will show innovations of delivery, career and technical the education programs many of which are funded under the technical education improvement act of 2006. the technical education programs prepare for college and career and get access to the skills they need and employers demanding. this act supports the development of academic and career and technical skills among secondary and post secondary education of all backgrounds. helping to prepare them for in demand high-paying jobs is the goal. high-quality, relevant and rigorous is intended it for the nation's to stay competitive and to build a strong economy. by ensuring that students not only to retreat from high school and college and work rear ready but also the global economy we

are securing our nation's future. of the 30 fastest-growing occupations about two-thirds of the post secondary education or training and protected to grow over the next years. in the state of arizona there are currently 70 programs with over 229,000 students enrolled of which 30% are latino and over 40% of those students are of color. in arizona the investments have been diminished and after the harmful sequestration cuts the public funding as at a historic low despite the state consistently performing well on educators of student success. we shouldn't cut funding for programs and the difference between getting ahead and falling behind for the workers all over the nation. we should support quality programs that allow students to explore different career interests and workplace learning opportunities that help prepare them for the postal work force

and further post secondary education. we know there is a skills gap and technical education is in trouble to opposing the gap. evaluations of career academics across the country have demonstrated that offering students academically embedded in a career programs can reduce high school dropout rates and paper students for higher learning careers. high school students that graduate from the career academy's mcginn average of 11% more per year than the non-career academy. one of four eventually earn a four year college degree. haulier urning our overall economy increasing the consumer spending and strengthening and growing the middle class. i welcome our panel of witnesses as they have some of the most expensive insight into the programs. we are grateful they are sharing their knowledge and i look forward to the collaboration to

address the reauthorization. with that i yield back pps e3. >> thank you. all subcommittee members will be permitted to submit statements to be included in the record and without objection the record will remain open for 14 days to allow questions and statements to the record and other reference to be submitted in to the official record. i'd like to remind members if and when we adjourned early that as usual, they may submit questions for the record, and i say that because we are not sure when the votes will come today. they may come as early as 10:30 or so. if that is the case we will have to adjourn and the hearing will not be returning. they've heard that story before so thank you. i appreciate you coming in again. it's my pleasure to introduce the distinguished panel of witnesses. mr. bargus is of the building

and contractors. he's been a participant since 1979 as a volunteer member then chairman of the chapter and a member of the chapter of the national board of directors. dr. sheila is the principal of the technical high school, the largest of seven high schools in the city and worst fire massachusetts -- were shire massachusetts. as the net life association of secondary school principals 2014 national principal of the year welcome to both of you. next we have mr. john fisher who is the deputy commissioner for transformation of fish in a government agency of information he has previously held positions at the university and new hampshire community college system. he serves as president of the nationalists as the illusion of directors and career technical education consortium. welcome. and mr. frank britt is an officer at penn foster

incorporated and he serves as the operating adviser at bain capital ventures. he has 20 years experience helping growth companies and innovation technology and consumer goods industries including a variety of senior level positions at ibm. welcome, mr. britt. before i welcome each of you to provide testimony let me sometimes more for us up here. you will each have five minutes to present your testimony. when you begin the light in front of you will turn green and when your time is expired and will turn red. at bat point i would ask you to wrap up your remarks as you are able. after everyone has testified, the members will have five minutes to ask questions and i would like to recognize mr. mr. vargas. >> thank you members of the subcommittee on the early childhood in the secondary education. my name is alvin bargas and i am

located in baton rouge louisianan. we volunteer leaders committed to training a highly skilled construction work force. the chapter offers construction crafts education programs out of baton rouge training center to currently more than 1,900 students. since 1983, the companies in the industry really that partners founded more than $43 million in cost. adc has partnered with 43 high schools in 17 districts which include a 76 class's with more than 1,100 students per year in demand such as welding and pipe fitting. we also engage high school students to craft competitions and a three day build your future event. in addition to funding the members alone donated more than 50,000 per year in materials and equipment and volunteer 1,600 hours plus annually in the classrooms. louisianan construction industry has a workforce challenge. progress, project announcements

and excess of $60 million in new construction for the state expansion resisting the coup facilities is driving the need for skilled workers. retirement career changes etc. will drive the demand for an additional 51,300 workers. even with an exploding work force demand for skilled construction work force, public high schools continue to focus on for your college curriculums. while this pathway is important, students should be offered opportunities for skills that prepare them for high-paying in demand careers that do not require a bachelor's degree. that said, the expansion of career and technical the education options should never come at the expense of academic quality instruction and must have a line with industry needs and post secondary credentials. abc and partners allow the education system with future work force demands, construction and the street and education sticklers establish a craft work force development task force

which created a strategic road map entitled building of louisianan's crafts work force. the task force is ensured the industry recognize and academically rigorous construction curriculum would be consistent to keep the delivered across louisianan's training providers. the louisianan community technical college system in the louisiana department of education have adopted a curriculum with ncer that blends classroom training with hands on the end of the post secondary in the community college programs. the training providers are focused on leveraging capacities of high schools as well as assets such as facilities and funding with private providers. the delivery includes compressed schedule for industry based certification and even weekend alternatives. the louisianan state government has also enacted innovative education reform such as the choice that gives high school students the option to choose a diverse range of courses

including the core academics, college preparation and career training. through course choice students can customize their learning path by gaining industry certifications in addition to earning high school and college credits. the program provides all louisianan students equal access to the career training and a head start on the post secondary credential career. course twice as a catalyst to construction jobs and continue on to complete post secondary courses. to achieve this, court choice provides the students, parents and counselors to cooperate to make sure students are registering for those appropriate for their age and to the police. as a core provider abc is offering pipe fitting to 34 students. the challenge is to focus current resources to support cte programs for in demand industries that provide students with innovative flexible options

that stretch from high school to advanced post secondary credentials. this includes new partnerships between industries, government and education providers while establishing accountability indicators and easily understood measures of success. on behalf of the association publican chapter i would like to think the committee for holding today's hearing on this important subject. >> excellent. good morning. you are recognized for five minutes. >> mr. chairman, rokita, members of the subcommittee thank you for inviting me here today to discuss the education training programs to be a my name is sheila and i am the principal of the technical high school. i also just received a huge honor of being selected as the 2014 metlife principal of the year. we are the second largest city in england and worcester is the largest technical city.

we have 1400 students in 24 different technical programs within the four small learning communities. 63% of students qualify for reduced lunch, 19% a special-education and ethnic backgrounds expect the city's demographics. previously we were the lowest performing school in the city and one of the poorest performing vocational schools in the state. presently we have a 92% first time passing rate in the english-language arts, 84% in math, 96% in science and last year 96.4% of students tried to read it in four years. the achievement gap decreased significantly and in some groups it is nonexistent. students to prepare for success with rigorous curriculum including a variety of advanced placement courses that provide academic with hands-on experience in the schools and workplace through internship and cooperative educational opportunities. they graduate with all the academic requirements and industry recognizing national certification. our students are graduating college and career ready to be

82% went on to high your education, 13% directly to the world to work and 2% joined the military. worcester tech has over three and 50 business and industry advisers that contribute to the director to the correction of the success of the students. if the edify is consistent representatives of local business and industry related to the programs organized labor and post secondary institution. parents, guardians and representatives register in these programs. the our internal partners providing direction by training, equipment, cert, licenser education and career opportunities. each technical program works to provide and recognize credentials as well as college credits to expand opportunities for post secondary success. our allied health students graduate with a high school diploma and seven college credits to be the certificate and allied health, certification and cpr first-aid, certified nursing assistants, home health aide and emt.

in our i.t. programs students graduate with up to 18 college credits from northeastern university on as being certified and a-plus and the certified network associate. with the business and how your education partners we receive new equipment at no or reduce costs while the sponsors benefit by having students trained on the latest equipment. a donation from to leota has allowed us to create a 16 day service sector furnishing with an automotive technology servicing of for 200 vehicles a month. we are committed to building partnerships with local to wind for year universities. our animal clinic was created by a partnership with tufts university and provides affordable animal care for low-income families in the worcester area. we fund a veterinarian to run a clinic and our students work alongside the doctor providing animal care. two years ago, we became a stem college career innovation school which created a pipeline for students to obtain jobs upon a

grudge region or studies in related fields and colleges. with this 21st century focus we are training students to meet and plan in demand of the area's growing biomedical industries. these partnerships keep jobs in worcester for another hundred years and keep the city strong. for the leadership efforts of the action and construction instructors our students work alongside college engineering students from worcester paulen technical institute to develop and build the modular that competed in the u.s. department of energy solar long that was held in china. this project helped them in their skills on the latest technologies and representative fields and through the front of their labors and truly once in a lifetime global cultural experience. successful technical schools require strong links to the community, business industry and academic institution. our schools success and students' success are intertwined. worcester tech is part of an engine cornyn meeting the needs and desires of industry for

highly skilled work force with the needs and desires of our students with good paying rewarding jobs in the field of their choice. mr. rokita, this concludes my prepared testimony but i would be happy to answer questions you or other members may have. thank you. -- e3, doctor. mr. fisher. >> chairman rokita, congressman, and members of the subcommittee thank you for inviting me here today. as deputy commissioner of education and vermont i'm responsible for the innovation transportation agenda with particular focus on the career and technical the education. this year i also have the honor of serving as president of the national association of state directors of career and technical education consortium. as you take of the important work free of revising the federal investment i appreciate this opportunity to share in sight based upon my experiences as well as those of my colleagues across the country. let me start by sending the federal investment in cte is

important and has been and continues to be a major drivers of innovation. 12 million students of all ages across the country participate in cte programs and every type of community setting. urban, suburban and rural. cte programs have delivered numerous types of educational settings of the secondary and post secondary levels. this diversity is a strength and a reflection of cte's responsiveness to its community, employers and students. it's also this diversity that makes us the unity behind the vision for the future cte is so unique. in 2010 the state's cte directors from the country agreed to a common vision charting a progressive agenda that leverage is opportunities presented in the perkins legislation. this vision which has been provided as a supplement to my testimony seeks to break down the silo's between academic and technical education and between secondary and post secondary education.

it calls for strengthened partnership with employers and demand is the data driven decision. and the commitment to the delivery system of programs studied and organized and out of the national carrier clusters which are 16 at this point. the division guides our work and federal policy priorities and my remarks today. cte is leading educational innovation and at the nexus, economic and work-force development. bmw located in south carolina because of the promise of its work force and cte was an important part of that commitment to ensure bmw has a skilled workforce it means today and tomorrow. in my state as is the case in many across the country, cte is helping to restore and grow our economy. cte is updating existing programs like automotive, hvac to the changing workplace technologies and introducing new programs like a biomedical, computer science, nanotechnology

and the like to support emerging demands. these programs prepare students for the skills and knowledge exactly what employers want to read cte is serving a vital role keeping the u.s. economy growing and innovating. cte's partnership with employers on of the most treasured aspects of our history. from local mom-and-pop small businesses to giants like ibm, union pacific and toyota they are building robust partnerships with education. from equipment donations to building the racket on creating new schools offering teachers and faculty and providing students with internships these business education partnerships are essential to ensuring our programs meet the needs of the 21st century economies. today's economy requires students to be prepared for options which means being

prepared for both post secondary education and careers. cte programs allow students to explore careers and be challenged by the real world of fun to experiences. degette to apply their knowledge and skills, learn how to become members of teams, find focused motivation and confidence. students are often learning and urning at the same time, gaining portable industry and post secondary credentials along the way. the dual enrollment has been a successful cte policy and vermont and across the country. research has found that the students were more likely to earn a high school diploma, golan to college, persist at that level and have a high your post secondary the grade point average than their peers. malida these opportunities to the head start and post secondary education with lessons the college debt load. for example at the memorial high school in kentucky the students had opportunity to graduate from

high school and earned an associate's degree. this is college and career readiness and this is today's cte. with perkins funding requirements as a national katulis, cte is transitioning its delivery model to programs of study. organizers are now the 16 career requesters, driven by high quality career ready standards through the common career technical corps, through strong evidence the programs of study reducing positive outcomes including better test results, better secondary gpa and improve progress towards graduation. in my state programs are studying a transformational role ensuring the most rural communities have access to high-quality cte. in urban centers like new york, l.a., chicago, cte is transforming schools. this is a matter of equity. no matter this dakota, gender, socioeconomic status or race the should have access to programs that prepare them to be both college and career ready.

and finally, none of this matters unless we have evidence about comes in for what the graduation rate for the students is 93% compared to our overall graduation rate of 87%. and this is not unique to vermont. >> thank you. mr. britt you are recognized. >> good morning, chairman and congressman and the esteemed members of the committee. my name is frank and i'm the ceo of ken foster, one of the nation's largest and most experienced providers of on-line higher education in the career technical field. i appreciate the opportunity to share perspectives this morning regarding this vital part of the education economy. i come to you today as a practitioner and active observer and my perspective starts with several important assumptions. the first it is self-evident that cte has worked and improved the lives of millions of people do to the dedicated faculty and administrators and a strong state and federal policies. secondly, given that strong

track record, there is a lot of work and a lot to do going forward. this is not a part of the education economy that is broken. this one is writing and can continue in the future. third, the change is upon us. education itself is changing, employers' expectations are changing and the reality is still learning habit of students in the digital world. it's in this context by think there's a significant opportunity to build on the strong and vital role but one that already plays out today and businesses across the country. i think we need to continue to lay out a road map and a platform that will further establish it in a contemporary context. the road map should be formulated by the practitioners and the cte industry as well as administrators but it also means to include people from outside of the cte industry to shape the next generation of students and lifelong learners. as you've read in my remarks we have six recommendations. i want to highlight three of those. with a share in common -- and this is an important and -- all

of them have been implemented in other parts of the economy and other sectors of the corporate economy. that is an important and to note. our objection is to incur the current best practices of cte with best practices from other industries so we can optimize the student experience of cte as well as returning investment. we have three recommendations worth noting. the first is the project based learning for the best of the traditional practices to better personal experience. this means project based learning combined with the way the traditional ground-based work to drive the best outcomes of the students. number two, we want to embrace digital learning. faculty members have always needed to embrace technology is given the disciplines they teach and the technology and software are essential to the countless fields already we've seen further digital tools and the learning context as a natural extension of what happens in the classroom and what should have been going forward.

the third perception, the reality is no skills occupations are in fact in demand and extort nearly respectable occupation san dr. stable lifestyles in many cases it allows people to enhance the senior management positions because we all know the degree to prepare students for middle school careers are misunderstood and appreciated. the reality is the alternative education career path may is in fact telling for millions of capable traditional learners and adults and needs to be encouraged white people and organizations to influence. there's a significant opportunity to make cte a new way to think about the economy for millions of people. and we think the perception and the branding means to be solved. in needs to be mainstream solutions that embraced in the same wave that colleges are embraced. we know a four year degree may not be desirable or practical for every student or in some cases it may be shouldn't be the first step but the reality is a trillion dollars of student loan

debt. students alike should be encouraged to understand the vibrant set of alternatives to help themselves and their families build a productive license. this is a moment to lean in on the power and promise of cte. in summary we are supporters and we know it can play a vital role in the skills in this country which is likely to worsen with the resurgence of the u.s. manufacturing. we have 123 year history in our organization including the students today to put desiccate in all aspects of the high school, college as well as vocational and career programs. there is an imperative that opportunity to change cte in this country and it's exciting when we can improve everyone's lives. we appreciate the opportunity to share our perspective. >> thank you to read out of respect with many fellow members as i can i'm going to hold out on my questions and go right to the member's questions. wright will be mr. thompson you are recognized.

>> chairman thank you and a ranking member. and thanks to the panel for your testimony. this is a subject i pretty passionate about. that's important the big picture we are talking about is competitiveness and qualified channing work force and the students that you touched and programs and the talk we are talking about serbs. the career technical education is in the field of dreams it is a field of jobs and helping develop the skills gap and make that connection i would like to ask unanimous consent to submit a statement from white co-chair the technical education from jim langevin. >> without objection. >> one of the key provisions in

the current act is the study on the post secondary education. have your program strengthened the secondary post secondary connections cents a was passed? anyone know what like to feel that, please do. >> it has been a change given the higher end to come to the table and secondary to come to the table not that they were reluctant partners but we never had a common vision and around that. and that provided a common vision. perkins requires the post secondary element of learning must begin in the secondary field and was a perfect opportunity starting to look at articulation agreements and now to the robust enrollment programs on the industry side working with businesses,

apprentice ship programs and move towards a full apprenticeships license. things have sprung up since 2006. >> we are very fortunate in worcester to have the 11 colleges and universities in the city. so we partner and we are working very closely and have partnerships for instance as our community college. they send their instructor to the school during the day and a sort of the allied health students to be certified and give the students free of charge credit. they also teach spanish one and two and students earned the credits. we've partnered with the paul retek institute where the students actually assisted their engineers to dance in the building of the zero energy modular home which they competed in china and they asked six of the students and instructors to go with them for three weeks to

rebuild a modular home and be part of the competition so that is an incredible. tufts university is about 15 minutes away and they approached us. our students built a veterinary clinics in the school that has surgical labs and x-ray machines and we service with the two entered 50 animals to low-income families that can't afford proper animal care before. >> coming back to the business industry it faces an incredibly important that is how we are competing for jobs that are there or the emerging industries that are recovering, they are in a transitional phase in terms of their work force so what role does the business and industry play in the program development and how can we strengthen that a

total role? >> it's a development in the ct -- cte. we spend a lot of time on the did defeat could demand and forecast so that we can try our technical education programs based upon the demand of the work force. the technical college system and high school system and workforce commission are intimately involved in this and we are now providing the path forward to put meaningful cte programs in state to track the occupational demand. >> i think we are just about out of time to read i will submit for the witnesses to respond the will be wonderful.

>> the gentleman yields back. >> thank you mr. chairman. let me if i may submit for the record if there is no objection statements from the ranking member ms. mccarthy and the association for career and technical the education. i would yield my time to ms. davis. >> thank you. you've touched on so many important areas. i feel we often worry about how we can bring things to scale and take the great expertise that comes with principal and educators in our system and to expand those and make sure they reach what we are looking for here. we know we are dealing with what i've always found to be some very passionate teachers in this

field, yet what is it that you believe put the perkins act to drive the best education in this area as well as expanding the partnership how would you like to see that as a combination of resources and a combination of rewards and grants and highlight the best practices how do we redo this to make certain? >> the perkins grant is the essentially for the functioning of our school. for example of our business industry in massachusetts is a pipeline for the jobs through perkins money we hired a ph.d. from the medical school and started a biotech program.

since then our district has committed additional teachers and we had the first graduating class and our students are all going into the majors which is fantastic. i would recommend there are less requirements for the money and regarding more flexibility. a lot of the money is spent on professional development which is the central protect local teachers to stay current with the ability to use the money in various ways would be very helpful. >> i think the act does so many important things by utilizing nontraditional practices like innovation grants that would attract not just the traditional leaders and innovators of the table but also people from outside the industry. i think one of the lessons

learned from all sectors is you have to challenge the best but it's more global and there has to be opportunities for the rest of the force to be part of that conversation and i think there are aspects that can be directed to innovation the that would create complementary perspectives to those that faculty bring today. >> i would agree with everything that has been stated and we use the reserve funds for the innovation grand opportunity and i would hate to lose that but we need to build more robust data systems and define what we are looking at and what defines success. we can do that in a common way than we can look at informing instructional improvement and also in beijing with business industries to say what are the

emerging programs we need to develop for? >> did you want to comment? >> i think that pretty well covered the topic in terms of what partnerships we have with education and the technical college system i think that really covers the system. >> i do believe when we have to collect the data we have to make sure it is representative of what we are trying to measure and how we do that we would welcome some input about that because that is critical. we are never going to get where we want to go to the you mentioned i think in the louisiana court's choice the students that. and i just thinking how is all of that managed because in order to have industries using their equipment or in beijing students at their site which is what we

can do, that takes resources. so how is it that we get there? i see my time is up. >> thank you mr. chairman. i think i know where the conagra's woman was going because i am curious with respect to the location issues. as we are looking at the reauthorization of the act, i'm curious what you think the most important thing the federal government can do to help ensure that all students have access to these types of programs. as the mother of a son that graduated from high school level of years ago, i wish that he had done more cte programs but as you mentioned, and then i've also been employed at the community college system. but my point is going back to

more with respect to my son the large public high school, but yet the cte programs are typically located far away from the traditional high school unless you have a fabulous technical high school which i love that concept but not every child is going to choose that and as they are exploring the careers and ideas if they leave and go off campus for that half a day for those programs, they are missing the other college prep and advanced placement tide of courses that the need to go to college so we have a big disconnect between our other academic programs and these academic programs, which people don't call them academic programs. but actually they should be. we have branding issues as you've said with cte but we also have access issues for students

who can't exported because then they are getting off the college track. and i'm curious what your thoughts are and if you understand what my frustration is about career programs being located far away from our high schools in separate centers and what should we be doing to fix that because the programs cte offer our fabulous but not enough kids are getting the opportunity to explore them because they did they will get off the college track. i would like to hear from all of you. and i like the technical program, but we can't have those everywhere to the exclusion of our other traditional high schools. >> in massachusetts there's over 60 vocational technical schools. although we are a career and technical high school, we have our academics that is a very different model than a around the country. we have our students and academics one weekend the

opposite week in the technical program and the office we can go back to the academics so we have created authentic experiences that are projected based learning so what we have done to expand that because we've been so successful to this high school we are now putting in the chapter programs to get to the opportunity to be a part of the experience for the project based learning. >> first of all lead branding what it is. it's not my father's. what it looks like and some slight and of what it produces the outcomes are big on that and the data please an important part of that. recognizing that the delivery can take multiple methods, anytime and anywhere learning rather than students hopping on a bus every day we can make

better use. we can also recognize if some of that doesn't take place and school work based learning experience but really saying this is the 21st century programs to aid they are rich in experience and heavily backed by business. >> how would you rename that and we ran it? that is part of the problem. as you mentioned calling it a vocational education i think it's taking us back decades and i think it is a huge problem for young people so whether it is a comprehensive school -- i'm curious what all you think it ought to be renamed. >> first of all, there are 5,000 career academies in the united states but the definition of the academy is a school within a school where there are traditional schools and whenever the right term is. the future model needs to be the technology enabled career and

college readiness academy. >> it should be iain, not for and that's an important distinction. the project based learning model like others are bringing to light actually make that and and not or proposition. it's a model that allows you to solve problems and begins to laugh eliminate the disciplines that began to integrate the disciplines into the real world problem-solving based approaches. it's part of the larger part of branding in the submitted remarks i noted an example which is a sort of contemporary one. there is the white space if you want to put a little marketing there is a white space available to lead brand this field and to own the jobs brand. and i think the opportunities to bring the private sector together to a vested interest such as this and begin to think about the brand and marketing. >> the time is expired. the chair recognizes himself for

five minutes. continue on if you will. >> do you have anything to add to the question? >> to address the issue of the facilities and where they are located, we have taken a hard look at identifying the high schools across the state that have either mothballed the technical labs within it be in construction and automated health care and working with have the technical we have laid out a plan that we can go out and try to reinvigorate the spokes in the high schools and in addition we have a huge bond issue to approved the locations of the technical college system and we would be allowing the new construction of the key is bringing eight back into the high schools and not reducing the curriculum because that's the key and we don't think that is a topic for discussion. you have to keep their rigor but also the technical the education

as well. >> what i'm going to do now is read my question. i'm going to ask the witness is to respond in writing if you would and then deal with the rest of my time so we can get some questions and. how can the federal government support more consistency throughout the cte programs without overburdening state school districts or institutions if you wouldn't mind, your opinion is valued if you can respond to the committee that would be appreciated. with that, i would yield of the remainder of my time in three minutes and 20 seconds. >> thank you. one of the questions in writing to in particular the impact of sequestration and what it's meant to programs and a vermont. that could be something the committee could see in writing.

a question for anybody that wants to answer as you look forward to the authorization what are the most important things the government can do to help ensure all students have access to high-quality cte programs and what are some of the recommendations on the ideas you might have as we go through this process? that's open to anyone. >> my recommendations and the grant in itself is very supportive of the career technical the education vocational school. we are able to use the professional development and buy equipment if we could be more flexible in the spending. it is hard to stay in the 21st century with the technology constantly changing and they would be very supportive of

having more flexibility in regard to the funding stream and where we could spend the money. >> i would add to that ensuring the maintenance and ability to be innovative within this we can follow the data once again to look at the high school high demand careers that many times it only reflects existing industries. we really need to look at the horizon as what is the merging and that takes a concerted effort with business in the street, high your head and all sectors of the economy. as the mckenrick of the because the background of your testimony everybody agrees the importance of the work based training with the cte i'm curious what are your thoughts on strengthening this process the role of the apprentice chef options for the students in the programs. >> could you repeat that?

>> on the apprenticeship program in the course of study. >> currently our program has four year apprentice ship programs and we also have craft training programs. but the acceleration of these learning experiences is brought on by demand from the industry and the immediate need for the training skills craft construction work force. my time is up. thank you. >> they have called photons. i see no other member is requesting to be recognized. with that we are going to wrap up this hearing. no long speech from the other than to say thank you for your leadership in the field. we definitely want to continue

working with you i think on a bipartisan basis we believe in the value of what you do in these programs and how integral you are an important you are to education and to the success of the nation in the 21st century so when in thank you for being here and the witnesses for their leadership and expertise and look forward to seeing your answers on the questions posed for the record. seeing no further business before the committee, this hearing is adjourned. [inaudible conversations]

you can watch this hearing again in its entirety. go to our web site, c-span.org. the house of representatives is holding votes this morning on key legislation that will keep the government funded past the september 30th deadline to september 15th. within that bill was language the word remove funding for the nation's health care law that is expected to pass in the house today and we will have the final tally on the bill as soon as it comes it's not expected in the senate which sets up a possible scenario leading to a government shutdown. the white house threatened a veto of the measure. we are ten days on the september 28 deadline and the senate is not expected to take the legislation until tuesday or

wednesday of next week. you can watch the vote on the companion network, c-span. a reminder we will have live coverage of president obama this afternoon speaking to workers at an auto plant in kansas city. up next remarks from berkshire hathaway ceo and investor warren buffett on philanthropy and economy hosted by georgetown university pity if he's interviewed by think of america ceo brian moynihan. warren buffett made over a 5 billion-dollar profit by investing in bank of america during the financial crisis. good evening, georgetown. it's a pleasure to be here. for those of you here last year you know that we had bono talk to you about what he did and

help arrange that in the work for the company. i was thinking about who we should bring in and also talked about. he said if you want to bring a real rock star bring warren buffett. because here is a guy that has done more than i can ever do etc. so, last year we brought you a rock star and this year we brought you a real rock star. [applause] >> we are going to do is a series of questions over 25, 30 minutes and then take your questions and put the students have a chance to ask about his experiences. i'm going to start with where the president left off. this is your home town. so what are your best memories of being around georgetown? >> i delivered papers at georgetown hospital 66 years ago and i developed this vicinity

because in the hospital people tipped. my regular customers the new me never tipped me but i would go to the hospital and one of the things they would do, the boss and tell me if they were a woman that had given birth to a baby that was 8 pounds and 11 ounces of a whisper that number to me and the number was very big in washington at that time. they felt like they were giving a terrible valuable information at what time the baby was born or something. so i have a lot of memories of georgetown. i was there during world war i, too which is a fascinating time in washington. my dad being in congress, it was a window on an extraordinary time in america. and of course at that time we

were more united than at any time in my lifetime about the common goal. that was the time that people like bobby and all of the athletes of today enlisted and people really did volunteer in a high percentage and play by the rules in terms of gasoline and rationing the sugar rush and all of that. we all bought savings bonds at school to help out the troops so it was quite a period. >> somewhere along there you started investing. and i've read stories that you started in 13. whether it is true or not to eight >> 11. >> what fascination [inaudible] >> i had to save 120 to buy a stock. my dad originally was in the investment business. he wasn't really very interested

in it, but i would go down on saturday morning and they had these books in the office and i read all of those and i went to the public library and read every book on investments in the public library by the time we moved to washington. ..

it was nice to get the round of applause at the start. i have learned not to applaud at the start because i'm 83 and i'm not sure i'll be around at the end of it. [laughter] >> you have more energy than anybody i know. let's switch to the other side. the giving pledge. how did you come up with the idea with bill? and how are you doing on it? >> we are doing great. three or four years ago though and melinda and i were out talking we decided to call right david rockefeller and see if he would host a dinner in new york for about 16 or 18 people, just to talk about philanthropy and oprah winfrey came and mayor bloomberg was bare and it was a private dinner. i started having these people talk around the table as to how they developed their philosophy of philanthropy. it must've taken us two and half hours to get around because people were really interested in

it. bill and i decided maybe there would be a possibility of taking this passion, which these people had shown and going to other people that had a great deal of money and see if we could develop something where people would pledge at least half their net worth. and we now have about 115 people. i've been dieting for dollars. i call these billionaires up sometimes they tell me how they can do it and i decided i tell them i'm going to write a book on how to live on $500 million because apparently they just can't seem to figure out how to do it. they need help. but it's been very rewarding. i received a letter from one woman. she and her husband had over $10 billion. she sent me a tie in handwritten note and said people like facing

their own mortality. that's tough for people sometimes. so she and her husband had changed the number half of that $10 million was going to go to it. they do tend to postpone the decision. they tell these people i call the last will is what counts. i tell them that i'm talking to some 70 year old committee think your decision-making ability is going to be better when you are 95 with a blog on your lap were now? let's get on board, fellas. [laughter] >> i assume that could defend that a 7-year-old decision on trade decision better. >> bill has gotten people around the world. he travels more than i do. what we are hoping his people to pick up on norms. i read about rockefeller in different people and need to pick a behavior from those who come before.

we have collected letters from everyone of these people that are up on the website and i think they are worth reading. they are pretty remarkable. what we really want is the people, denver people lake marks a. he's obviously going to appeal to a much wider -- younger group than i would care this gospel of health that andrew carnegie came up with 100 years or so ago has influenced all kinds of people. but we've got letters teresa not on these letters. i want to emphasize one thing. nobody in our group has given away a dollar that in any way affects how they live. i have much greater admiration wrinkly for the person who drops $5 or 1 dollar in the collection plate on sunday the right makes a difference in whether they take their kids to a movie or eat out or some sort.

they are giving something up it has utility to them. i am digging up nothing that has utility. i have everything in the world that i want. so i have a whole bunch of stocks that have no utility to me and they can possibly have enormous utilities to other people for education are all kinds of things. so people that up something that actually can add utility to their family and give that to some other person though it has utility to them, those are the people i think deserve the kudos. but it's still nice to go where the money is. so if we can work on polio or something like that, it takes a big contribution and we want to go after it. >> part of what you've done is a bill and linda foundation and on the one hand he do it and sack it is that whatever the number will be -- talk about the gates

relationship in my shows them as opposed to creating your own foundation. >> welcome originally my wife and i plan when we were in our 20s when we had everything we needed we would use the rest for society. i thought she would outlive me. she was younger and women outlive men. but she died in 2004. i had to come up with a different plan. the specialization of labor come you know if you're good at one thing come you're not necessarily good at another. these are talents where they are most useful and get other people to use their talents. when my wife had babies come i went to an obstetrician. when i get a toothache i go to a dentist. i wanted to go with people who were good at giving away money, younger, smart, energetic and had the same objectives and philanthropy than i did. the basic principle is human life has equal value.

if you start with that is your basic assumption, a lot of things flow from that. bill and melinda as well as my children because i foundations for each one of my three children that are of significant size. you can read the letters they wrote them on the berkshire hathaway website. i don't direct them to do and it ain't, but i do tell them if they succeed at everything they do and philanthropy are doing the wrong thing. the important ones are the tough ones. i've got much younger people, very energetic people, common objectives and they work for nothing. that's not a bad deal, right? >> that stretches the money a long way. >> absolutely. >> you require them to move the money out. >> has got to spend it. and when i die, all the money has to be spent within 10 years after the estate because i do not think i can pick out some little great, great grandchild

yet to be born just because he is the right name and they will be the best. there'll be plenty of philanthropists 50 years after a day to take care of the problems. i want the money to get spent properly. i don't believe in trying to control things to the grave. i'd like to think i can think outside the box -- did you not said that particular box. last night's >> recently i read an article about eastlake. so this week on as many people know, the pga finishes up the tournament in the story i read about the developments you've now help in the development work he does with communities. talk about that because that's a little different than this type of thing. >> it is the same theory of loving the people who are putting their time and energy and who are successful in a project is worthwhile.

tom is a remarkable man who lives in atlanta, just extraordinary. he took this terrible, terrible neighborhood caught eastlake in atlanta and against a lot of community opposition, it was crime-ridden and nobody did well in school and everything else and he decided he had to play and holistic approach to it and he couldn't just attack this thing or that thing. so he were to years to develop this entirely new community out of this total disaster. and then tom and i talked about it. i said tom, everybody's going to say that can only be done because you are tom pheasants and he lives in atlanta. tni an opponent chile and robbers, but are merely tom decided to see if we could replicate this in other communities. it seemed to me and tom that new

orleans is a great one to do it in. it had been wrapped by katrina and everything. so we've taken it to new orleans where we've got hundreds of people. it is mixed income type community. we do not want to have it with everybody being subsidized. we want to create a new kind of community where people of different races, different economic conditions work together, play together. it's been successful in new orleans. we went to annapolis and was at about 11 more talents we are working on now. tom peasants has really come up with something. he's a fantastic human being. when you get a chance to join forces with somebody as high quality as that, energetic, smart and putting his own funds, you've got to jump at the chance.

>> let's switch to the economy now. what's going on with philanthropy and the economy. what do you see in the economy and your operating companies from an investor's point? >> businesses combat very well from five years ago. it was a panic like nobody's ever seen. whatever you think about was worse. i'm dead serious about that. we were right on the edge of the cliff. fortunately, i give enormous credit to both ben bernanke and hank paulson and tim geithner and frankly even though i didn't vote for them, president bush. you know, i don't know how many of the study economics, but they talk about comparative advantage and all that. keynes talked about animal spirits announces people. but president bush really came out with the great economic insight of all times.

he did it in 10 words in september 2008. he went to the white house and said if money doesn't lose enough this will go down. that goes right up to him to tear down those facts. he backed up those fellas. so we've come back from it. but businesses come back. a lot of companies are having record profit, including many umpires. there have been populaces as a whole that is not coming back. a quality is getting wider. the "forbes" 400, which just came out shot aggregate wealth of $2 trillion. you go back 20 years and that was 300 billion. if different people to some extent, that this is the top. 300 billion to 2 trillion. they are saying the medium and come is the same place it was in terms of purchasing power.

in 1989 it hasn't changed. so the inequality is getting wider. the rich are doing extremely well, extraordinarily well and businesses doing well. this is profit margins are terrific compared to the record historically. business returns unintentional bold equity are terrific. but a great many people in our country -- take the bottom 20%, 24 million households or something like that, housing about 60 million people. the top level is $22,000. i don't want to try to live on $22,000 at a couple of kids. we've got an economy that is delivering $50,000 gdp per capita and they've got an awful lot of people who weren't living well. we have learned how to turn our goods and services, but we

haven't learned as well had to have everybody share in the bounty that we have. >> is that we've just got to grow out of it? >> we are growing. even 2% a year, if you think about it, the population grows 1% a year. so that means 1% per capita progrowth. that means in 20 years there's a 20% gain in gdp per capita. that's not bad in the generation. but the question is how it gets distributed. this system works. in my lifetime, i was born in 1930. i was conceived in 1929 because my dad was a stock salesman and after the crash he didn't have anything to do. [laughter] so i let back with great fondness on the ninth 1029 crash. since 1930, since i was born in 1830, real gdp per capita has increased six per one.

i mean, it was centuries and nothing happened for people. this country works. they consider the luckiest person on a probabilistic basis that ever lived is the baby that's born today in the united states. it is a fabulous country. the market system works, all kinds of things. in my view, we have to make sure that everybody participates to a reasonable degree. we wanted baselevel better or refer people. >> you talked about george bush's state, economic statement. what do you think the lessons are of the last couple of cycles from investors and point? a lot of young kids out there. you lived through cycles of the 50, 60 years plus. what are the lessons and these are young people. what should they take away?

>> the lessons are people will continue to make the same mistakes. it doesn't correlate to i.q. particularly. when they get greedy and we have this huge bubble of the most important not set is probably housing. you had a huge up with something you could her heavily against. so you run a margin in house and status talks and the conditions got very lax. so when that bubble popped, people came into that gradually. when everybody wants -- when people get scared they'll want to be the one time. that will happen again. it will happen with a different set of circumstances. the human animal will keep behaving pretty much the way it has in the past. so we will have periodic recessions. we will have an occasional panic. i'll recessions don't come from

panax, but the good news is if you look at the 20th century, and the 20th century we had two world wars. we had the great depression. the flu epidemic, the cold war, you name it. the dow jones average went from 66 to 11,497. with all these terrible things happening. america works. when i bought my first stop when i was 11, that was in the spring of 1942 and i was a couple months after pearl harbor and the repeating clobbered in the pacific. i mean, the death march of the time and european theater in the bliss of england was on. and the dow was about 100. just look at where we are now. the country really works. the trick is, it seems to me, the obligation of the society as prosperous as ours is to figure out how nobody gets left too far

behind. >> it was interesting because last year bonus features a lot about how america's speech can accomplish in the optimism america could have by persons not america by birth. i know you care that optimism. after all of this, what makes you most optimistic? >> and income in just imagine 1789. go back just a few hundred years. you know, sir christopher arena, st. paul's cathedral is buried there. there's a little plaque says if you seek my monument, look about you. if you seek america's monument, this country has all come about in a few hundred years. we have less than 4 million people when we became a country. china had 300 million people at that time. europe had about 75 elliott. they were just as smart as we

were. they work as hard as we did. they had natural resources similar to ours and we ended up at a quarter of the world's gdp a few years later. we've got something that works and we don't want to mess that up. we want to figure out what we do with this abundance better as we go along. you don't have to worry about the system working. you will have periodic recessions and you will have an occasional panic brought on by some pain, who knows where it comes from. i read an op-ed piece in "the new york times" in the fall of 2008. i said the country will come back. don't go through a recession, but it will come back so it's coming back. don't ever worry about americans. you're in the right place. >> you've been famous for investment strategy. basically the chips are down and that served you well. so what's your favorite time you

able to accomplish that when you cut somebody down? [inaudible] it's always been fun. there is a company here in washington called in court. i first got exposed to that in 1950. i was 20 years -- 19 years. i was 20 years old and i came down here in making down down on a saturday probably because they weren't my professor named engram was determined. i got down there and the doors locked. i went to the building on a saturday and pounded on the door and some janitor let me in. a marvelous man and learn davis spent four hours teaching me all about insurance. he helped me so much. you are going to get help by sin wonderful people. it's a great thing to learn when you are my age to get help from

all different people because nobody does it alone. obama got in trouble when he said that on the camp pain. but nobody does do it by themselves. we all sit in the shade of trees that were planted by others. if we factor the replay and a few trees ourselves. it's been a great ride, but it's not over. >> when did you actually buy geico? >> well, geico and five -- imad davidson when i was finishing up the columbia and started telling securities. my aunt alice would've bought anything. so should buy 100 shares of insurance, first off i ever sold. and a lot of years passed and mr. davidson was very kind to me in a variety of ways. but i went in a different direction. in 1976 the company got in big

trouble because they miscalculated their reserves than they were going broke. so i came back here and i bought a third of the comp me in a very short period of time. and in 1995, they had repurchased their shares and went out to see mr. davidson, who was out in bethesda. he was 96 or 97. >> we will be the program at this point. you can see it in its entirety at c-span.org. the house has just voted to fund the government until december 15, but they've also voted to defend the nation's health care law. house republicans are holding a rally after this boat has just come in. live coverage now here in the spin two. [inaudible conversations]

[inaudible conversations] [inaudible conversations] [inaudible conversations]

[inaudible conversations] [inaudible conversations] [inaudible conversations] [inaudible conversations] [inaudible conversations]

[inaudible conversations] [inaudible conversations] [inaudible conversations] [inaudible conversations] >> we are live on capitol hill

browed now. house republicans gathering to hold a rally this morning after voting just a short time ago to fund the federal government passed the september 30 deadline to december 15. ultimately, that those languages defining the nation's health care law. the vote on that bill, 230-189. see how your cumbersome voter that go into your website, c-span.org. [inaudible conversations] [inaudible conversations] [inaudible conversations]

[inaudible conversations] [inaudible conversations] [inaudible conversations] [inaudible conversations] [inaudible conversations]

[inaudible conversations] [inaudible conversations] [cheers and applause] >> good morning and thank you everyone for joining us on this important saturnine. today the house has acted. the house has acted to keep the government open, to control

spending and to protect people from an unworkable lot that is making it harder on that. my colleagues have all voted in favor of this law because it is going to help moms and dads and families and young people and seniors all across this country. and that is who this is all about. when i was home in august, like so many of my colleagues, are the stories from individuals and families who are concerned, who are panicked over the implementation of the slot and the impact it is having on their lives. so that is why the house has acted and today we urge the senate to take action. we urge our colleagues in the senate, our allies on the outside and the american people to push the senate to have this important debate on the floor of the senate. because if we are going to take action on behalf of the american people, we need the senate to have this debate on the floor of the senate. [cheers and applause]

>> when we started this health care debate, the president led with a very big promise. if you like the health care you can hive -- that you currently have, you can keep it. today the headline reads 20,000 americans work for home depot and are provided for even us part-time. obamacare does not allow for that. that's why today what we have to do is not just the republicans, but a bipartisan vote. let me say that again because i want to make sure you read it correctly. it was a bipartisan vote because we are americans. [cheers and applause] is a privilege to sit ms office. and i would say this, as the founders crafted this country,

they crafted to bodies to work. the house has now done their work. we call on the senate to do theirs as well. [cheers and applause] that house has been fighting to stop obamacare since 2009. and we have said over and over again, this law is going to increase the cost of the working middle class families of this country. and we are now seeing it. we have said from the beginning this fall will harm our economy. we see our economy turned from a full-time jobs economy to a part-time jobs economy. that is why we are doing our jobs. it is now up to senate democrats to show some responsibility and follow the houses laid. [cheers and applause] you now, many senate republicans have promised to leave no

fighting this bill. all of this year's support that effort. [cheers and applause] we are calling on senate democrats to do the same thing. and i want to know where senator pryor stance on protecting the middle class. [cheers and applause] from the consequences of this terrific bill. earlier this summer, nonprofit group enforcement in arkansas that provides care for seniors announced that they are cutting hours for hundreds of staff members to 28 hours a week. how about kay hagan and north carolina? dishy understand the consequences that obamacare is having interstate? currently the president, not a clan has said it's not feasible or sustainable to extend coverage for all of the 1100 employees that he has. he too may have to cut hours for much of his work force.

what about mary landrieu of louisiana? [cheers and applause] obamacare is also hurting her hard-working taxpayers in that state. in july, lawrence katz, owner of dad's diner told the senate and a committee hearing that he may have a layup as many as 16 workers and these are working middle class americans trying to make ends meet. and finally, what about mark begich of alaska? through obamacare, americans across the country could be hit with a ratio. in alaska, it is predicted that premiums could rise between 30% and 80%. what is senator begich going to do about this? well, he goes to keep obamacare in place. we are into the site and we want the senate to join us. [applause] [cheers and applause]

>> well we had a victory today for the american people. frankly, we also had a victory for common sense. senator obama cited by several months ago when he said that this law is a train wreck. and it is a train wreck. the president said, you know, if we pass this law, health care costs will down. but now we find out that health care costs are going up for most americans. the president said if you'd like to health insurance policy you have come you can keep it. we found out that is not quite accurate either. in the coming months, millions of americans will find out it is just not quite true. this is hurting our constituents. it is hurting the american people at a time when the economy is early eking along. wages are increasing, new jobs aren't available.

what are we doing? we are putting more cost and convenience on the american people. it is time for us to say no. it is time to stop this before causes damage to american families and american businesses. we've got businesses all over the country who are not hiring because of the impact of this law. you've got other businesses that are reducing the hours for their employees because of this law. and so, our message to the united states senate is real simple. the american people don't want the government shut down and they don't want obamacare. [cheers and applause] the house has listened to the american people. now it's time for the united

states senate to listen to them as well. [cheers and applause] [inaudible conversations] [inaudible conversations] [inaudible conversations] [inaudible conversations] >> house republicans finishing up a rally here on capitol hill,

where a short time ago they decided to extend beyond the september 30th deadline come and take in the first steps to avoid any government shut down. the bill includes language that would strip funding for the nation's health care law. the vote was treated to. and now heads to the senate. the white house has to veto the measure. the senate is back on monday. work on the legislature not expected to start until tuesday or later with the possibility the government was shut down on september 30. the vote tally, 230-189. 228 republicans and two democrats. jim matheson of utah and mike mcintyre of north carolina for the 230 voted in favor of the ccr. one republican, scarper gillett virginia and 188 democrats with 189 votes against. a quick reminder that president obama will be speaking to

workers at an auto parts plant in kansas city this afternoon. he may have some thing to say about the vote on the cr when he begins this afternoon. we will have it at 1:50 here live on c-span 2. >> many said a report would have dared amnesties are closing down our prisons. no conclusion like that could be further from the truth. we recognize that perfection and protection here is not possible and that finding good men and women will still come forward to serve their country and risked their lives on the front lines of danger. we should continue to do all that we can to protect them as they go about such challenging tasks. that was the sole purpose of our report and it was produced with a deep sense that we had to get it right. politics, elections, personal controversy and all other external factors aside.

>> kerry cohen, director for the agency in charge of implementing key provisions testified before

the house subcommittee on oversight and investigations. he told committee members the market places will be ready by october 1st. this is just over two hours. [inaudible conversations] >> good morning. i convened a hearing of the subcommittee on oversight and investigation. less than two weeks enrollment and qualified health plan for the patient protection affordable care act will begin, the law of the land. today we hope to discuss the challenges and issues that may arise over the coming weeks. most of the concerns currently can be reduced to one question, is the administration ready? since passage of the president's health care luck of the administration has consistently told us the government will be ready when open enrollment begins october 1st and exchanges or january 1st. get our experience has shown the present predictions about the future of the health care law

often give way to results of this russian raki implementation. a lot has many problems than half of that was done away with over a year. all individuals comply with the requirements generate one or pay a penalty, this is not so for businesses and companies able to delay the for a year. lower premiums evidence about that some individuals will face extremely tight and exchanges open. as much as double the price they are currently paying. the administration's promise to be like her coverage come you can keep it rings especially hollow now with news reports almost every day about businesses moving spouses and families and employers or their retirees into the exchanges. the president's promises were true, we would hear stories about major airlines losing millions of dollars of health care law. we would hear about spouses is in the coverage. meanwhile, any oversight of health care law remains taboo for the last defenders.

that's meant as a send to the recipients of federal funding to participate under the law. we have some fairly basic questions. how many people are your hiring? what are you paying them? are you performing background checks? we expect groups should have answers to these questions is enrollment begins in less than two weeks. in the course of this investigation, the committee has had any productive calls for the recipients of navigator funding. i've had many of myself which have been very fruitful. in fact, many organizations were prepared to answer questions we believe will be ready to properly perform their navigator duties. yet we've also seen the navigator program like many of the programs created under the health care luck has been impacted by the administrator's delay in implementing the law. according to a gao report issued in june, the administration issued the navigator grants two months behind schedule. the administration plan to issue the first round of awards in

june. they did not end up issuing them until august. the administration had originally planned for july, but hhs did not finalize programs until august 29. delay naturally reduced by almost half of the time available to navigators to begin training and preparing for enrollment. today we'll ask mr. gary cohen, director for consumer information manager is oversight to explain how the abbreviated training schedule for navigators will affect the program. we'll also ask mr. cohen to address concerns in a review of the grant applications. we learned some navigators are planning on going door-to-door to conduct her own activities. the report issued yesterday by the oversight government reform committee says that problems linked to door-to-door outreach activities such as skimmers knocking on doors and falsely representing their navigators. and yet, this activity is under the program. we've also learned the return of taxpayer dollars varies wildly among recipients.

the administration is paying one navigator $80,000 to enroll 312 people. that's $80,000 of taxpayer financed will not even a person a day. on the other hand, other groups have high expectations. another applicant estimated they would enroll approximately 70% of individuals strictly contacted to 100,000 of all individuals. there's a wide difference in expectation workloads. our concerns over the safety of consumer data and health information remain as well. one navigator plans to survey and track those who attend community meetings under the promises of additional pay at the navigator prole of a certain amount of individuals. i've concerns about paying for that. meanwhile, one navigator told committee staff they believe background checks are if these are not a required action. our responsibility and conducting oversight of federal programs is to identify waste fraud and abuse in the best case asking questions about federal spending and shining the light on programs are for taxpayer are

wasted and allow those problems to be corrected. a wait-and-see approach to health care reform i does not seem appropriate when its implementation has been botched by delays and uncertainty. let me add to this as a clinician and psychologist myself, is hardly ever appropriate for me or my colleagues in the medical field to wait until problems with a severe or critical level. we like to know problems early. that's the appropriate thing to do. and he claims we are doing otherwise are inappropriate and spirits at best. so i welcome mr. cohen and ask questions about what we can expect in the coming weeks. i recognize ranking member to get for her opening statement. [inaudible] >> thank you, mr. chairman. representative degette for yielding to me to make a statement. oversight is important, but the affordable care act oversight of the last three years has not been to a mite the committee or improve the lot.

it appears to be part of the efforts by the republican party to age in partisan attacks on this blog and if they could do it, even sabotaged the affordable care act. i released a report last month highlighted the unprecedented republican campaign to undermine the law. 41 repeal votes, refusals to expand medicaid for about middle income americans and the imminent threat to shut down the entire federal government or force the catastrophic government default if the law is not repealed. there is no legitimate purpose served by the letters to 51 navigators who are community groups, food banks, community health providers and many similar not political organizations passed with trying to help inform the public about the affordable care act benefits. this request was ill-timed and a

serious mistake and i find it amazing to hear the chairman talk about how they haven't had enough time to do their job, but now we are trying to -- by the committee, divert them from doing their job by asking all sorts of questions. the letters sent to that war without a predicate or evidence of wrongdoing. they serve only to burden and intimidate these organizations, just as they are beginning their critical work. my staff yesterday were these the analysis of navigated program. our investigation found that navigators will help millions of health insurance coverage if they have extensive experience assisting individuals with federal and state benefit programs and they have effective privacy protections in place. in short, the republican rhetoric rhetorical attacks on

the navigator program i believe are unjustified and it can to stop with the facts. it is hard to escape the conclusion that it was designed to intimidate these groups and discourage participation in the program. thanks to the affordable care act, millions of americans will be able to get high-quality affordable insurance. the worst abuses of the insurance companies have been an aide. this republican approach, i believe, is bad for the country. i now yield the balance of my time to the gentleman from north carolina. >> thank you, mr. waxman for yielding time and for your extraordinary leadership. you not only wrote the affordable care act, but you got it through this committee. mr. chairman, i am pleased to announce the tens of thousands of my constituents in north carolina party benefited from the affordable care act. 130,000 seniors are not eligible for medicare preventable services. for the 1000 children can no longer be denied coverage based

on preexisting condition. 8200 young adults now have coverage on the parents plans. it's been a long path and we are almost there but with the beginning of open season on october 1st, less than two weeks away, we will be one step closer to helping many americans receive affordable and quality health care. the opening of the marketplace, the education provided by guest for navigators and the outreach by hhs will help directly and will 1.1 billion uninsured people and this is an additional 7.3 billion uninsured people to receive health insurance. but instead of touting the success of soon have a nearly every american in short, my republican friends have forced more than 40 votes to dismantle and defend the act. the chairman of this committee in my opinion abuse this investigatory authority by launching a fishing expedition of navigators who receive funding solely for the purpose of discrediting the program. this, mr. chairman, distracts

the navigator's attention. you know it and i know it from their mission of helping families to access health insurance. someone said many of these navigators will be going door-to-door. i hope they will be going door to door to enroll every uninsured american. a north carolina newspaper recently reported months of a north carolina republican colleagues who served on this committee said that she would be pleased if the congressional navigator inquiry worked and she is quoted in that article as saying, if this ended up resulting in a delay, i wouldn't be unhappy about it. this is an average, mr. chairman. i hope on october 1st that we would unite and make sure every american gets access to affordable health care. the american people deserve it and we need to bring this debate to the close. thank you, mr. waxman. i yield back to you, sir. >> the gentleman yields back and now puts him in from texas,

dr. burgess. >> thank you, mr. chairman. i appreciate the recognition. here we are a dozen days from the start date of october 1st through the open romans is going to occur. i don't know why whole lot more than i did the last time mr. cohen was here at the end of april this year. since that time, i've been told time and time again by officials from health and human services, center for medicare and medicaid services, treasury, white house and even you when you were here, mr. cohen, that they would be ready to go live on october 1, 2013. in addition, the federal hub that is going to be operational in days, we have not made available to us any of the testing data that reportedly has been done and that obviously is an important aspect that many of us continue have a great deal of interest. even more concerning is the fact federal officials have assigned each of the responsibility for education and outreach to federally funded navigators. similar to the administration's

other delays while health and human services had initially planned to issue the first round of navigator grantsmanship and begin training in july, the grants were issued on august 15 and a training program was not available to the navigators until the end of that month. yet $67 million, $13 million more than originally budgeted, $67 million of taxpayer money, taken by threats by the irs from taxpayers across this country, $67 million has been given up to navigators across the nation and we don't know the purpose of that money. now i am going to reference an article from august 4 of 2012. so this is over a year ago. it appeared in "the new york times." the article says federal officials are looking for private contractors to provide in-person assistance to consumers and operate call centers. the contractor will help the government decided as federal subsidies expected to average $6000 a person and who is exempt from the tax penalties that will

be imposed on people who go without insurance. again, this is august 4 of 2012, so it is not like the agency didn't know this was coming. the article goes on to say mr. hash, the director of the federal office of health or firm said the federal will operate essentially the same manner as the state-based exchanges. however, they differ in a significant way. states have done their work in public, but planning for the federal exchanges has been done almost entirely behind closed doors. i think that is one of the problems many of us on this committee have with that. sabrina poor lad, continued in the article, a research professor at health policy institute at georgetown university said the federal exchanges were much more opaque than the state exchanges. you have to wonder what value is there in opacity and that situation a minute demonstration

who set up value transparency. yesterday morning, people who received their copy of "the wall street journal" for greater but the headline, burden shifts on insurance. firms change health coverage. walgreens guestworker payments to buy plants. you know, when the health care law was sold by the president across this country, it was sold with the admonition, if you like what you have come to you can keep it. if you like your doctor, you can keep her doctor. if you like your help can come you can keep your health plan. but apparently not if you work for walgreens. we have criticized on this side of the diocese with attempts to rein in the affordable care act. no apology for the number of times the legislation has come to the floor of the house to try to pull this thing back. it's never been popular. it's never enjoyed popular support. it is becoming increasingly clear how dangerous this law is to people's health and health care, how dangerous it is to our

economy. that's seven times, the president has signed one of those bills into law. so gone are the 1099 provisions. under several other things. but here is a point that people miss. 700 times the president has decided himself the parts of the law were unimportant and the law he signed was not in fact going to endure. what about the preexisting condition program? this law was sold on the backs of people with preexisting conditions across this country. and yet when someone showed up on february 1st of this year to enroll in the piece that program, they were told sorry sister, the program is closed. for 11 months, people with preexisting conditions have been promised relief are wandering the country wondered what they were supposed to do. shop exchanges were supposed to open. removing the reporting requirements of relying on self

attestation, delaying contractors, removing out-of-pocket caps. no premium for permission. this is promised by the administrator of cms in july in this committee that i would have this information by september 15th. mr. cohen, we are going the long way now to september 15th. on the website today on health care.gov, he says come back in a few weeks we are busy trying to get it ready. thank you, mr. chairman for your indulgence. >> thank you, mr. chairman. before i make my opening statement by to welcome the newest member of the energy and commerce committee, congressman john jarman from kentucky. we are very glad to have him. [applause] i would ask unanimous consent to allow him to participate in the hearing today. he doesn't have subcommittee assignments yet, do we know he is going to be on the fabulous subcommittee very soon. >> without objection. >> thank you very much. mr. chairman, we spent more than

our fair share of time in this committee on the affordable care act talking about implementation. it is our seventh year in this year and we really haven't seen any problems come up in all the hearings. so i want to thank mr. cohen for coming back again during a busy time in his schedule as the exchanges open on october 1st. on the subcommittee, it is our job to unearth the fact in an object is a nonpartisan manner. we have two weeks ago before the market places go live, i want to talk about what we've seen this year. we contained documents and conduct extensive investigation of health insurance premiums under the aca. what did we find out? the aca is going to allow millions of americans to obtain affordable insurance for the first time ever. hhs this week released a new report showing that nearly six in 10 currently uninsured americans, 23.2 million people would be eligible to get insurance coverage for under

$100 a month. the kaiser family foundation study released earlier this month pleaded that premiums are generally lower than expected. a new man to study reached similar conclusions. the facts also show that individuals with health insurance coverage are already benefiting from the act. the hhs revealed that 6.8 million customers saved an estimated $1.2 billion on their premiums in 2012 due to their rave review provisions in the aca. this committee also conducted an investigation into the contractor's responsibility for implementing the aca marketplace. this is one of my favorite hearings because what the facts show? they showed that the contractors will be ready on october 1st. ..

and committee's investigation shows there's no basis for the allegations about the navigators. yesterday the minority staff released a supplemental memo supplementing the customer in its review. i would like to ask that be made part of the record. the investigation found that navigators would help millions of people obtain health insurance coverage that have