right decision to make and obviously we would have much preferred a more successful launch and you know, if that, if that could have been affected by having somebody in the position in the past absolutely we should have had somebody in that position in the past. what i've think you you've seen me do and about the do and everyone involved in the effort do, acknowledge at the outset response to questions of this nature, yes, healthcare.gov got off to a terrible start and that is our responsibility. that is on us and that's why we were so committed to making improvements we made and why every time i get asked on the positive side, you know, aren't you pleased by the, dramatic increases in enrollments or by the -- >> error rate coming down. >> error rate, stability, answer is yes. we have work to do. yes, but we still have to deliver on the promise of the affordable care act which isn't, which wasn't a promise to have a

great website. it was a promise to make available to millions of americans quality, affordable health insurance. >> no one will be held accountable for not hiring somebody who knows this stuff? >> we have addressed that question. we're about the business right now of making improvements necessary so that this benefit, that some americans clearly want is available to them. and the fact that we, in the first month plus of this exercise threw up so many obstacles in the ways of americans who wanted this benefit is our responsibility and we have acknowledged that and addressed it and we continue to do so and we still have a lot of work to do. >> yes, ma'am. we talked yesterday. i said i would call on you and i'm calling on you. >> thank you, jay. two questions on north korea. how does the obama

administration's negotiations for two years on north korea kim jong-un -- [inaudible] >> kim jong-un or? yeah. >> the second question the united states have any contingent plans for collapse of north korea? >> i think only way to address this is to point to what we said in the past about north korean behavior and their failure to live up to their international obligations, their failure to take steps that would allow them to rejoin the community of nations and to end the intense isolation that they are experiencing in the world an isolation that combined with the regime's decision to spend its, the resources it does have on military procurement rather than feeding its own people has resulted in the impoverishment

of the north korean people. so that's how we would evaluate circumstances in north korea today and then, when it comes to contingency plans, i don't have anything to report on that but obviously we always, as any administration does, would look at variety of contingencies. yeah. >> yesterday when the white house announced the meeting with the tech ceo you said they were going to discuss national security related to the revelations and then the economic affects or impact of these revelations. >> i think this addresses some concerns that some of the tech companies raised in the wake of the disclosures. that was i think the reference. >> what about economic impact to the, you know, u.s. economy overall, to their individual companies, does that make sense? >> again we'll have a fuller readout but my understanding that was meant to respond to, or to acknowledge we would be discussing some of the issues that tech companies and their

ceos have raised. >> is there a reason, i should have asked earlier, no one from aol were in the meeting. they were the only signatory to the letter that doesn't have a representative there. >> i will have to take the question in terms of the makeup of the meeting. as you think saw it was pretty impressive group of individuals. john? >> do you have any update at all for how successful the effort to sign people, get people to enroll, healthcare.gov been getting young people? what was the status on that? >> i don't have any data specifically broken down by age. i would refer you to cms i'm not sure what they have. there is no question that overall between now and march 31st there needs to be a good mix of individuals in, who enroll in the marketplaces. as i think we've talked about in general it is common as we've

seen from past experience for enrollment of any kind in these kind of programs including the private health insurance that most of you enroll in and have open enrollment periods for to happen disproportionately toward the end and young people are even more inclined to wait until the last minute to get their paperwork done or their online applications done. so, having stated those facts i don't have any specific information with regards to the age breakdown so far. >> cms won't give that information out either. do you not have it? you must have -- >> i don't have it. so i would refer you to cms. i don't have the data. >> and what efforts is the administration making to get young people to sign up? >> i think you've seen a broad-based effort to focus on the opportunities and options available to millions of americans across the country, including young people. i think that if you saw in the "wall street journal" yesterday there was an article, we've

often gotten questions about or statements from commentators about the fact that it would be proof that enrollment is working and the website is functioning for the vast majority of users when you saw outside groups, third party groups including insurance companies invest in advertising to reach potential consumers there was an important article in the "wall street journal" about a number of insurance companies investing substantial sums to do just that. i think that would indicate that they believe the opportunity to reach those potential consumers exists and that those consumers will be able to enroll in their plans if they so choose. so it's a broad based effort and it continues not just now but through march. >> what do you think of some of these efforts by obamacare supporters to reach out? i mean some of them, upside down

head stands and what not? is anybody going to buy health care because barak tells them to buy it? it. >> having not designed advertising campaigns myself, i'm not an expert but i think that, you know, people, there are efforts underway to reach potential consumers. you know where they live if you will and to get them to be aware of the options available to them and wisdom of getting covered, of having health insurance and i think that is what all these efforts are about. and we certainly believe that there has been, i mean one fact is in spite of, we know, it was being noted that the effort, the advertising efforts and the like had been pushed back because of the problems with healthcare.gov. one of the facts i think often

went unnoticed that despite that we still have extraordinary levels of interest demonstrated by the number of visits to the website itself and that continues. we continue to see, i think something like half a million over the weekend of visitors to healthcare.gov so that the demand is there and it is our responsibility to make sure that the system works so that the demand can be met. briana. >> thanks, jay. nearing the end of the year here, looking to the next year. can you talk a little bit about what are the president's biggest priorities? what is hoping to achieve in 2014? >> sure. i will leave it to the president to be more specific but, and he will be certainly at the state of the union address but his priority which he made clear at a speech he recently gave here in washington is the economic

health of the middle class and the prospects for future, stronger economic growth for the country and job creation for the country and that has been his priority since he came to office and will continue to be his priority going forward. and, within that context he is concerned, as some people are, by the growing inequality that we've seen, and the effect that has on mobility, upward mobility for americans across the country. this country is obviously known for the remarkable mobility that it has afforded generations in the past. i think it is a sobering fact that to learn that, countries in europe often, in some cases have more upward mobility for their

citizens now. that illustrates why this is problem that needs to be addressed. you heard the president give a substantive, lengthy speech about that the other week. he will certainly continue to address those issues. comprehensive immigration reform. because it is so important for a variety of reasons including first and foremost, important for our economy and important for the middle class. his climate action plan. climate needs and energy security needs as well as need to address climate change. that is the priorities the president will continue to push forward into 2014 and beyond. >> ask you a question about at aca. cms last said that 10% of the 830 forms that were transmitted to insurance companies had

errors in them. they are now saying that number was inaccurate. now they are not providing a percentage. is the white house confident, one, does the white house know the percentages? does the white house have confidence whatever that number is, whatever that percentage is, coupled with the ability to-eyed these arrows and the outreach that's going along with it that that's going to mean the number of people who are aiming to be signed up for health insurance by january 1st, that that's going to be what we would see as minimal come january? >> i think, i'm tracking, as i said yesterday and previous daze there is no higher priority that cms has and the administration has on the c -- aca making sure that those individuals who enrolled or believed they enrolled are taking the steps necessary and have the data to the insurer necessary that will allow them if they sought

insurance coverage on january 1st, to get it. and there are a variety of means by which that communication is happening. when it comes to the back end issues i can tell you since the beginning of december enrollments that did not generate the necessary transaction form, the 834 form, that goes to the insurance company has been close to zero. now what that means is -- >> i'm not talking about i understand that. that is not what i'm talking about. this is seems where we ask a question about, we know 834s are being transmitted. i'm talking about the once that are transmitted and have errors in them. >> right and i'm saying here's because this is important, as an anecdotal example, we are confident that we have made major improvements to healthcare.gov including on the back end issues that have reduced that transmission problem to zero or near zero and that have addressed the problems with errors. i think an example of that is

insurers like blue cross-blue shield of kansas are saying that they no longer need to follow up individually with enrollees to verify their information because the 834s are coming through cleaner, they're coming through accurately. now what i've said is what cms is doing is reaching out to individuals who enrolled especially in the earlier period where there was a much higher percentage of problems with the back end issues and the 834 forms to make sure that accurate information is being delivered to their insurers, to make sure there is communication between the issuer and the enrollee so the enrollee knows what he or she has to do in order to have coverage when they choose to have coverage, if it's january 1st or later. so the point is that, and we've been talking about this, the work that's being done on the issue of 834 forms and ones that

had errors in them or transmission problems have to do with those closer to the launch date of october 1st and as improvements were made we saw fewer of those problems and now we are at a situation where there are very few indeed. >> and the white house then has a firm grasp on what, if any, i assume there are going to be some, are they going to be small amounts, a large amount? you're confident the white house has a grasp on the size of the problems that will confront people who are trying to sign up for insurance by january 1st, by that we mean people who obviously think they're insured or gone through the process and then come january find out maybe in a rather rude awakening or beyond? . .

>> which has held off for weeks on a plan campaign, as problems with the web site made it impossible for many consumers to sign up said it expects to spend more than $100 million by the end of the year on tv, social media and print ads targeting -- i forgot about this, john -- targeting mostly young and healthy people. $100 million. that's a pretty significant investment by a single company. and i think they wouldn't be making that investment if they didn't believe they would get some return on that investment, that they would be able to, that they would attract consumers to

their product and that those consumers would be able to purchase that product through the marketplace. >> blue cross blue shield of kansas is representative of other insurance companies -- >> well, i think that you, obviously, i don't want to say that every insurance company can be included in that, but it demonstrates what we are seeing, which is that in realtime -- and we're seeing, obviously, a significant increase in the amount of traffic and the number of enrollees -- there are significantly fewer problems with the back end. and the 834 forms. and down or close to zero when it comes to the transmission of those forms. yes, peter and then -- >> jay, secretary sebelius' blog announcement that -- [inaudible] would be coming on beginning tomorrow, she said the agreement is that he will stay through the middle or the first part of next year. i just want to get a sense of how long the white house believes they will have someone in this role before it's

satisfied all the needs. is he the last guy to do this, or will this exist in perpetuity? >> >> i wouldn't presume to know, peter. obviously, this position was created not that many weeks ago when jeff filled it and filled it working seven days a week and making significant progress in the effort to bring healthcare.gov up to the performance standards that the american people deserve. and it is because of the secretary's view and the president's view that that role should be filled by someone of the kind of experience that he brings to the effort that it will be filled at least for as long as kurt has agreed to serve in that role. >> i guess the question is there a standard point at which you'll be satisfied that you've accomplished everything you need and that role is no longer needed? >> well, i can't -- in terms of

that role, obviously, enrollments in healthcare.gov or through healthcare.gov will continue beyond march 31st and year after year after year. what i can't tell you now is whether we might make a judgment or the secretary might make a judgment next spring, for example, or early summer that that position should be filled again. >> as in regards to the tax meeting that took place or is still taking place as it sounds like right now with the president, couldn't the problem in ways be solved by having the phone companies keep track of this data as the review board is apparently recommending? >> well, i can't speak to recommendations by the review board. as i said, i think the board will make available their report and their recommendations -- >> [inaudible] >> and i also don't, i think that that is an issue that has been put forward in public

discussion, so i'm aware of that as a proposition. but i don't have any comment on that as a recommendation at this time because the president's review is ongoing. >> you can't give us a sense of some of the tech companies have been delicate in the language they've used about exactly what rules are governing what they can and not communicate. so i guess i would propose why shouldn't they be allowed to tell the public more about what they're being told to provide? >> again, i'm not -- i mean, in terms of what they, i mean, whatever, you know -- >> being more transparent about what they're being required to provide. >> i'm not sure of what their obligations are in terms of legal obligations, and i'd refer you to the department of justice for those issues, if that's what you're asking me. >> i guess what's at stake. >> i think that's the kind of question that i would have to point you to the department of justice or elsewhere to answer, perhaps the nsa in terms of if

it has to do with intelligence-gathering activities and potentially classified programs. >> then finally if i can, earlier today we learned six more americans died in afghanistan during a black hawk, i believe it was, that crashed and the president's been notified and if he has any comments regarding this most recent -- >> i'll have to get information on by whom and when the president was notified. this is, obviously, as is the case anytime we lose men and women in uniform a tragedy and something that we mourn greatly, and it's a reminder of even as we go about our lives here stateside that we have so many of our fellow americans serving in harm's way still in afghanistan. >> one more question about the tech meeting? >> i don't know yet. >> [inaudible] >> i would refer you to the defense department. i don't know. >> one more question about -- [inaudible] did the letter that they penned last week prompt this meeting?

>> i don't know the answer to that. i'll are to to take the question. i think that -- i'll have to take the question. i think that it has been, you know, we have had this administration in particular ongoing interactions with major tech companies and major tech ceos for the entirety of the administration. so whether this specific meeting was in response to that letter, i can't say. but this is not the first time the president has sat down with tech ceos. >> [inaudible] >> sure. it may just be that the meeting -- because the meeting has on its agenda other issues besides this, it may have been something that was going to be scheduled anyway. >> was it still going on when you came out here? >> yes. john. >> with regard to immigration, the president is if a desired position of implementing an immigration law. what the white house take as a learning experience from healthcare.gov and the rollout of health care? you've got nine million is the

estimate of people who would be applying for legalization through various means, different pathways. you have got an e-verify system that requires businesses to interact with the administration. what have you learned from that that would help you implement immigration, what assurances can you give the public that that would roll out better than -- >> i got pretty much the same question yesterday, and, you know, i would say that these are two different kinds of things, very significantly different. the fundamental problems with the rollout of the marketplaces had to do with the technology associated with healthcare.gov, with a web site. it was trying to do something rather significant and unprecedented and is doing it now much more effectively. so i think i would note before the analogies are made that there are significant differences in implementations of these two pieces of legislation. i certainly hope that for the sake of the country and the economy and border security and inthough vegas that we have the

opportunity -- innovation that we have the opportunity to implement comprehensive immigration reform because the economy needs it and our security needs it. >> i understand that you're saying they're not perfectly analogous and certainly there are a lot of differences between the two, but are there lessons to be learned from the imelementation of a major -- implementation of a major program that requires a lot of technology for the next one that -- >> well, i haven't looked at the technological aspects of implementing comprehensive immigration reform. a big piece of it is border security, and i think that this administration has demonstrated its commitment to and success in improving our border security. and a piece of it has to do with improving our legal immigration process so that those who come and study if our universities can -- in our universities can and want to start businesses here and stay here and start businesses in the united states and hire american workers to do that when they do that.

so these are things that build on what we've already demonstrated a capacity to do. so i guess i'm not suggesting there wouldn't be lessons learned, i'm saying that because i haven't looked at the specific requirements of implementing immigration reform, i wouldn't be the person best able to tell you what specific lessons might be learned from the problems at healthcare.gov versus the problems associated with, you know, bringing 11 million undocumented people out of the shadows and into a system where they get to the back of the line and move through a process like the one envisioned through comprehensive immigration reform. yes. >> [inaudible] ceo meeting, it appeared it was going on at least twice as long as it was scheduled for. even when you came out, did you have any indication on what direction that meeting was going? >> i did. and that's what i provided to you, i know they spoke about --

i know not just anticipated, but know that they had already discussed healthcare.gov issues, they spoke about procurement issues related to federal i.t., and they spoke about issues related to disclosures, as i noted in my brief readout of the meeting that was still going on. >> by meeting with ceos -- >> they also then, of course, the president announced and he's in the room the appointment of kurt to succeed jeff. >> ceos on the nsa today, what message is he trying to send to businesses and the american people? >> as i think we've said in the past, in addressing national security and economic impacts related to unauthorized intelligence disclosure, the president was hoping to hear from, directly from the ceos of these companies about these issues and their concerns and

also, obviously, looking for the opportunity to explain both how these programs are viewed by him and the fact that he is engaging in the kind of comprehensive review of our signal intelligence gathering that has been undertaken now for the past several weeks and months and which will conclude in january. looking at, as i've said in the past, what we do think, essentially, two prisms. one, the absolute value that the nsa and other agencies in our intelligence p community provide in keeping the american people, the united states and our allies safe. and doing so in a way that is legal and constitutional. he also has made clear that because of the remarkable advancements in technology that the united states has both led the way in and been able to take advantage of, but as have other

countries, we need to look at our activities through the lens of making sure that we're doing what we can and should but not just -- or what we should to keep ourselves safe but not just what we can because we have the technological capacity to do it. and i think that is the sort of way, framework around which the president has been approaching this review. >> concerned about the snowden revelations have hurt his reputation for trustworthiness? >> look, i think that the, you know, the disclosures have been problematic in far more significant ways than how they affect people's view of him or -- they've been problematic because they are leaks of classified information. and that is why mr. snowden has been, has had charges brought against him, and, you know, others can address the impacts

of those kinds of disclosures on our activities and our safety and security. i think those are the issues that concern the president. >> there are indications that he does have some problems with -- [inaudible] with respect to his reputation. what's the president doing to rebuild that -- >> the president is focused every day on what he has committed himself to do which is to work on with behalf of the american people to create an economy or help foster an economy that is growing from the middle out instead of the top down, that is making more secure and expanding the middle class, that's creating ladders of opportunity for those who aspire to membership in the middle class, that is bringing jobs back home to the united states so that we can have the kind of industries and businesses that create good jobs, that sustain secure middle class lives.

and that's his focus. also his focus is the safety and security of the american people, and he is fiercely committed to that. but as you've heard him say in regards to the issues around these disclosures, you know, he has been very candid and frank about the need to review our activities in the way that i described, and he has undertaken this in a very deliberate way. that review, the overall review -- there's a lot of different reviews within the review, but the overall review will be completed in january. >> how about with foreign leaders, what's he doing to repair his relationship, rebuild -- >> i've gotten this question a lot with regard to countries that have expressed concerns about the disclosures, and we deal directly counterpart to the counterpart, leader to leader as well as minister to minister on these issues and through the normal diplomatic channels. and we are doing that with leaders in countries that have been a part of the disclosures.

as a matter of regular order. voice of america. >> thank you. jay, on south sudan, how has the president been keeping apprised of events there? we had a curfew in effect, fresh reports of new battles there in south sudan, and this is an issue that he's mentioned several times including at the united nations. does he have -- >> well, he gets briefed on it, on developments there. and as you, i think, are noting in your question, circumstances there have gotten worse, and we remain deeply concerned about developments in south sudan. we are monitoring the situation closely and continue to call on all parties to resolve their differences peacefully and democratically. we want to see an end to the violence, and for south sudan to get back to working toward realizing the vision it articulated at its independence of forging an inclusive, democratic state of peats internally and with its neighbors. recent violence moves south

sudan further from, not closer to, that goal. but if south sudan chooses peace and democracy, we are confident it can get back on track. so the president gets briefed opposite, we're very concerned about the developments we've seen. our embassy, i think it's been reported elsewhere, is currently closed, and we are moving to departure because of the uptick in violence. and we call on the government to open critical points of entry and egress including at the airport. >> any -- [inaudible] >> i don't have any presidential calls to read out. i'm sure if you speak with state, there are communications government to government. ann. >> thank you very much. did the president ask secretary sebelius to publishuate the inspector general's review inside the department of hhs, and because it's an in-house review, is that good enough, and does it indicate secretary sebelius' job is secure? >> i would -- i think secretary sebelius or the department has put out information about that

review that i believe she initiated, and, you know, i've answered questions about this in the past. the president has confidence in secretary sebelius, and he knows that she, like everyone on her team, is focused on implementing the affordable care act, in making improvements to healthcare.gov and insuring that we deliver on the promise to the american people that they would have access to quality affordable health insurance through the marketplaces. >> that his first priority is to get the web site up and working, people enrolled. but then it would be time to find out what happened. does the president think it's the right path to investigate that within the department by the inspector general as opposed to some other kind of information? >> i mean, i think there's plenty of oversight happening on capitol hill, and we agree with -- or, rather, cooperate with all legitimate oversight into this matter and others, and we're doing that now.

i certainly don't think there's any disagreement with the actions secretary sebelius has taken. they are entirely appropriate. >> they -- >> however, we're focused on implementing the affordable care act, making sure that those millions of americans who have demonstrated despite the obstacles that have been put in front of them their intense interest in enrolling in the marketplaces and purchasing health insurance through the marketplaces are able to do so in a timely fashion. that's been our focus, and that's what people have been working on 24 to 7. >> has the president said he wants to know what went wrong -- and i don't have any update, ann, on what he said about that or -- >> [inaudible] what she's doing now. >> he has confidence in secretary sebelius, believes that what she's doing is appropriate and, again, he wants his team principally focused on delivering on the promise of the affordable care act, because so many millions of americans continue to demonstrate their interest in this, their desire

for it as measured by the substantial traffic at healthcare.gov and as measured elsewhere. and, you know, as we've seen, as i cited earlier, the efforts that are beginning to take place from outside groups from insurance companies and others in this effort to make sure that those americans who have these options available to them are aware of those options and take advantage of them if they so desire. april? >> has the white house or hhs offered any kind of help to states that are having problems with their health care web sites? >> i'm not specifically aware of what that communication is. i'm sure there is some, but i think hhs or cms could give a more detailed answer. it depends -- i think you would have to ask them, i think the answer's probably yes, but you would have to ask them specifically which state and which issue. >> now there's no expectation

that anything could be delayed, any kind of timelines will be extended or delayed because things are now -- [inaudible] or in the process of -- >> no, i think what we said is that or we are working to do everything we can to make, as i was just saying, this, these options available to americans who want them. and we have taken a number of steps to make this process easier for those americans who have either had trouble because of the healthcare.gov web site or because of the cancellations of existing policies. you know, we're -- and so we're continuing to address and make the adjustments necessary to make this transition as smooth as possible, again, with the goal being providing access to the quality affordable health insurance that so many millions of americans so clearly desire. >> [inaudible] >> all right, alexis, last one. >> a couple quick follow-ups. on the single surveillance

review, some months back you made clear that the administration, president obama had already made some modifications, interim modifications, and you might remember what those were related to, but to what extent will the president be specific with the international audience and the american people when he does finish the review and get to talk about all of the changes put together that he's -- >> i think you can expect the president will speak to this issue, will make remarks about it outlining what the outcomes of the review that has been conducted, and that will take place in january, i expectment but i -- expect. but i think he does desire to be as specific and detailed as he can be given the issues here. i think that's reflected in the fact that the review group on intention be, communications technologies will be releasing its report publicly. so the president's comments and remarks about the steps that he'll be taking or has taken, i think, will reflect that same

desire for providing as much information about it as possible. >> other questions, both on friday and today you have described the president's legislative agenda as including his climate action plan. and there are people in washington who think that a midterm year and divided government is a challenging year to try to press for climate change legislation. can you expand on what the president hopes to urge congress to adopt in 2014 on climate change? >> well, i think the, if you look at the climate action plan, when i talk about that as part of the president's agenda, i talk about that as part of the president's agenda, not just his legislative agenda. and i've mentioned this with regard to economic measures and other measures including measures to reduce gun violation that we absolutely want to -- violence that we absolutely want to work with congress and get bipartisan legislation passed where we can and where congress chooses to be -- especially house republicans -- cooperative and to work in a spirit of compromise to get things done

that the american people want done. but where congress refuses to act, the president will avail himself of whatever means he can to act administratively to advance ab agenda that he -- an agenda that he believes is vital to our economic growth and to the middle class. so i don't have specifics. i'll leave that to the president in terms of what actions he'll be taking, what legislation he'll be proposing, how he envisions working with congress and how he envisions making progress elsewhere on these issues that are so clearly vital to our economic growth, vital to jobs and vital to our national security. >> one other follow up. les been reporting -- there's been reporting on the president's planning for his library, the early stages of putting together a team. do you know if the president has made a decision to be transparent about the donors who contribute to the construction and development of the library and center? >> i think my reading of that story is what my understanding is, there isn't even an effort that exists yet.

therethere isn't even an outside organization that exists yet. i know that he and everyone here is focused on advancing the president's agenda for his second term that we just talked about. so i think we're ahead of ourselves as that article reflected. thanks very much. >> so i'm standing in front of the 1905 wright flier three, this was the third and final plane that the wright brothers built and survives as the second oldest of their planes today. this airplane was constructed and flown in less than six years' time between the time that they built their kite and the success of this particular airplane.

this is also a plane that was built less than two years after their first flight at kitty hawk, north carolina, on december 17, 1903. what's interesting to think about is that the wright flier and kitty hawk flew four times, just four times on one very historic day. they were four very important flights, and they very much were the proof of concept of powered, heavier-than-air flight. but the airplane behind me, the 1905 wright flier iii, was capable of repeated takeoffs and landings, repeated flights of not just for a few seconds at a time, but upwards of 40 minutes by october of 1905. and this airplane could fly graceful circles, it could fly figure 8s, it could bank and turn and fly very much like a modern airplane flies. but this is very much a modern airplane, capable of being controlled through three independent axes of flight, pitch, roll and yaw.

>> there's more from wright brothers aviation center next weekend as booktv and american history tv look at the history and literary life of dayton, ohio, saturday at noon on c-span2 and sunday at 5 p.m. on c-span3. >> you're watching c-span2 with politics and public affairs. weekdays featuring live coverage of the u.s. senate. on weeknights watch key public policy events and every weekend the latest nonfiction authors and books on booktv. you can see past programs and get our schedules at our web site, and you can join in the conversation on social media sites. >> while the u.s. senate is in recess at this hour for their weekly party lunches, earlier today lawmakers voted 67-33 to move forward with debate on the bipartisan two-year budget agreement. the house approved the measure last week. we are expecting further debate this afternoon in the senate. and as we transition over and

look now at the area outside where senators are having their caucus meetings this afternoon, any senators who wish to come to the microphones here, we do plan to bring you those comments here live on c-span2. right now, a discussion on federal rulemaking from today's "washington journal." >> host: for the next hour we'rn going to engage on the topic of the costs and again benefits of federal legislation. joining us, former senatorthe blanche lincoln who now is the chair of the small business for. sensible regulations. welcome. >> guest: thank you. >> host: also joining us, robert weissman, a public citizen ands as their -- serves as their president. welcome to you as well. we've kind of titled in thepu costs and benefits, let's start with you, senator lincoln, are there costs or benefits to regulation? >> guest: absolutely, and i'll be willing to bet youos that robert and i agree probably on a lot more than we disagree on, but any regulation is going to

have a cost, and it's going to have a benefit, hopefully. absolutely. i will bet we will agree on more than we disagree on. we want to see greater transparency in terms of what the costs and benefits are. we want real data to be able to see what that is all about. what would you say goes into factoring it, if it is a cost or a benefit? guest: everything should. we are what -- way over the majority of small businesses want safer working conditions, they want cleaner air and cleaner water. they also want to be heard and about how regulations affect them as small businesses. and what are the cost to them, whether it is a cost out of their pocket, in terms of jobs

they could be creating, or that they have to lose because they have got regulation, you know, what are the benefits? are they outweighing the costs in terms of what it is costing them as a small-business person in the community and in the economy at large? there are costs and benefits. regulation has been very vital in making our country as strong as it is. the air we breathe is cleaner. the food we eat it safer. the water we drink is safer. workplaces are safer. we have gotten rid of child labor all through regulation. we know something about the costs and benefits. the white house looks back over the previous 10 years and looks at both the costs and benefits. even if you use that figure, which i think does not take into account monetary benefits, the benefits outweigh the cost by as much as 10 to one. that is true for the bush and

obama administrations. it turns out regulators are sensitive to the costs and impacts on the economy of anything they might do, overly sensitive, and particularly concerned about small business, and they do not act rationally. anyyone that says significant impact on the economy, benefits dramatically outweigh the costs. sense reflected by small business that there is too much regulation by this administration? >> there is certainly a sense by the small and big business lobby that i do not -- i do not think it is objectively true. the level from the cement a station is not dramatically different from the previous administration. it is somewhat -- somewhat more, partly because of the wall street reform act and all the rules required out of that, and the health care reform act and the rules required out of that, but by and large, we have not seen as much of a surgeon regulation as you might think,

not as much as we might hope to see. it needs to be done. how would you respond to the claims as far as the level of regulations in the past as well? guest: robert is right. we are not about doing away with regulations or agencies. we just think government needs to be smarter about them. 2006, you have seen a larger increase in regulation. about 3300 new regulations in the pipeline right now. what i would say is the uncertainty of what will come out of this large number of regulations, which we have seen an increase, there is no doubt, but again, we are not saying we do not want regulations. what we are saying is we want government to act smarter about them. there are costs and benefits. there are times when we have to

determine whether or not the benefits outweigh the costs. inneed to use everything terms of determining that cost, not just what it costs to the small business person, but what does it mean to our economy overall in terms of jobs? we are not growing enough jobs to sustain the growth in our economy right now. >> part of that is because of regulation? >> some of it is. i am not saying all of it is, but some of it is. small businesses are really our largest creators, particularly of government jobs. we want to empower them to be able to not only comply and help us reach all of the great things robert mentioned, the fact that we are a country that has cleaner air and cleaner water, safer working conditions, and a whole host of other things we governmentecause of working with industries and businesses, but i think we have lost a little bit of that in terms of empowering our small

businesses to be able to work with government. that is why we would like to see more transparency in the data used to determine that cost benefit. and that we would have a seat at the table for small businesses to be able to talk about their unique experiences of having to deal with compliance. that is really what it is about. compliance. it is having government smarter so that it will empower small businesses and work with them to meet the regulatory compliance out there. in that way, both have a vision of what is necessary both government and those regulating, as well as the small businesses who definite -- desperately want to be good stewards not only of the environment and the workplace, but of communities and the economy. >> she speaks of transparency when it comes to these things. how would you expect -- how do you respond?

guest: there is a strong link but it is different than the senator suggested. the reason our economy is suffering now is directly a result of the 2008 financial crash and housing bubble. that crisis is largely due to whole series of non-regulation deregulation efforts enforcement failures. the federal reserve did not crack down on the banks and did not monitor wall street and did not deal with the housing bubble. whole series of rules have been rolled back and let wall street get out of control, and we are all suffering. is crisis we suffer from now a direct result of too little regulation. a seat at the table. there are some -- special laws that require small businesses to have an extra byte of the apple. amazing transparency about cost estimates for any significant rule put forward.

that is not an obama administration position. is very amplyness there is a high degree of transparency. it is mostly the other side about stopping rules going forward. there is a special agency at the white house which reviews all significant regulations before they go forward. rulesgency never makes stronger and never sees them along. it only struck -- slows them down and we can them. has been a channel for both the agency and the white house itself to slow the regulatory process. we have seen that time and time again whether it is rules about workplace safety, prevent the from running over -- getting run over. host: for republicans --

you can tweet us a question or comment and also e-mail us at well -- as well. just to give an example, and maybe this is a wrong one, the dodd frank act, which oversees the financial services industry. into of regulations put place, only about 40% of those actually made it into the process of being official and being on the books. why does it take so long to get these types of regulations to the point where they're actually being done? the agencies are facing an enormous pushback from wall street. wall street fights the dodd

frank law in congress, win some, loses some, but they never stop and then they take the fight on into the agencies. are the public interest representation, already weak in congress. much weaker. agencies meeting with industry officials 10 times as often or more. sometimes 100 times, as your meeting with public interest representatives. it slows the process down. we are a weaker country for it. even three years after passage of the law, we have only got half of them done, maybe less. there was a huge need for transparency and accountability in the fountain show -- financial markets. we try to put into. frank both the necessary legal language, but also the flexibility for regulators. there is a fine line for legislators. kind of go through phases on capitol hill where people think

legislators are micromanaging, that they are not allowing the regulatory process to take part in what needs to happen as laws are formed and put on the books. muchimes, there is too leeway given to regulators and agencies. i think in dodd frank, we tried to make very clear what we were trying to do in terms of creating greater transparency in dodd franklity and particularly on wall street and handing some of that over to regulators. i think they have done some of what needs to be done. clearly, there is more to be done in terms of what needs to come out of there. the 40%ou surprised by application of rules and regulations? no because regulators and most of these things take forever. it is important to have the review and the input of wall street.

it does not mean they need to write the rags. but they definitely have to have input in terms of their knowledge of what it will do to the markets, as well as what it will do to the global economy in global markets. that is critically important. i was reaching out to counterparts in other countries. that was something we did as legislators when we were writing, and certainly, we have seen some of that from regulators. it is an important point. we are not just our own economy. we are working within the confines of a global economy and we need to work with those individuals globally. >> let's take a call. democrats line. good morning. >> good morning. about, like to comment we have one party that tries to put in decent regulation. when they get it passed, and get whatever regulation it is, they get past, the other side of the

aisle is trying to not fund it. they just try to figure out a passed and it is law, but we do not have to fund it. you can see that in many different ways. why, after reason the first clinton white house, i , toded to change my colors try and not look for, and -- for common ground and just make the other party look bad. >> mr. wiseman? it has been a problem that the republican party has passedhe idea and

regulatory bills and threatened the funding of the agencies to make them carry out rules that reallyen adopted, and make it so they cannot enforce the law. if i could comment on the previous discussion, one of the rules required in dodd frank was an obligation on the securities exchange commission to acquire publicly traded companies to disclose the ratio of pay between ceos and their average employee. that was it. just disclose the ratio of paid between a ceo and your average employee. the fcc, because of so much industry pressure, took a year longer than their deadline to get the rule done. we will see the agencies sued over this. there will be an argument the costs are too high, figuring out this unbelievably simple calculation about the ratio of pay.ay to average worker that is a typical example of how regulation can clearly serve the

public interest, often at little or no cost, but faces these claims from industry about enormous cost, and then typically, in the case of dodd frank, a lawsuit, after the agency gets down to issuing a role. >> we will take another call and then go down to you. doug, independent line. go ahead. >> thank you for c-span. a little bit of problems sleeping so i was watching programs last night on c-span. you had interesting things. trade and such. wiseman,dering how mr. how he would expand upon how these government agencies seems to be capture. panels,d two different and we have these people who were former commissioners and things like that nature. ceo, and another ,ne is chief legal officer somebody else.

i saw one on the federal trade commission. trade was watching the other negotiating people for trade agreements talked about regulations but they talked about them in such a disparaging way. the audience was questioning about, well, country of labels, origins, things of these nature, also, working conditions and environmental, and things of this nature, that they were so detrimental. ms. barshefsky, who basically negotiated for us, has the own firm which tells people about these things. i was wondering if he would comment more on about how all of these agencies seemed to be captured. senatorpromise to the she would go first. guest: i want to go to the last song we were talking about

because the gentleman brought up a great point, certainty versus uncertainty. he talks about being in the middle and finding common ground, that is really the key to where we need to be in getting the kind of regulations that will do what we want them to do. is, again, to provide us a continual effort to clean up our that and air and finding common ground makes the difference. we are not doing that anymore. the budget agreement i think they will come up with and get out of the senate is a good example of where we are taking a when we talk about trade agreements, trade agreements are very important, and -- but i couldn't miss commenting on that other piece because i think it's so important. i think americans are really looking for greater certainty out of washington, but for trade agreements, you know, they're difficult. they're more difficult now than they've ever been before, and they're critically important to

our global economy and certainly making sure that we're reasonable in terms of what we're looking for in those trade agreements and is whether or not we'll be be able to comply with them, it's the same commitment. >> guest: there's a big issue of regulatory capture where the industries regulating the industry work too closely with the industry they're supposed to be regulating. sometimes instead of thinking about them as the regulated industry, they start thinking about the companies involved as their client. and in particular exactly what you're pointing out, the revolving door where people come from the industry into the agency, then leave the agencies and go back to industry, they're obviously thinking they've got relationships, and they're thinking about their next job when they're making decisions when they're in the government. there probably is no worse agency in this regard than the u.s. trade representative, exactly as you say, where you've got people who are really thinking about -- have a mindset about advancing the interests of u.s. multi-nationals or developing trade agreements that

advance the interests of u.s. multi-nationals; the pharmaceutical industry or the copyright companies rather than thinking about the impact on everyday americans. and they believe what they're saying, to be sure. but they also know that when they leave the agency, they're likely to work for the exact same company they were benefiting when they were inside. >> host: jan is from essex, connecticut. republican line. >> caller: yes, good morning. >> guest: good morning. >> caller: yes, hi, good morning. can you hear me all right? >> host: go ahead, sir. >> caller: yeah. i've been sitting here listening to this discussion, and what concerns me about it is the regulators themselves who are the people that are interpreting the regulations proceed to create an environment whereby they stifle the ability of private businessmen or private entrepreneurs to respond to immediate market demands.

and i'll give you an example of that. during hurricane sandy, the call went out to the bus industry to supply emergency motor coaches to transport workers in the staten island area which had been heavily flooded. and that was both to aid in the removal of people going in and out and also of the emergency workers. and the company that was allocated responsibility for picking these people up was unable to find motor coaches at the prevailing price rate and ended up having to offer double the price rate up to $1500 a day simply to transport workers about 4 miles from their barracks to the worksites. where they were doing repair work for staten island. now, the reason for this goes

back into the internal regulations of that industry, and that is that you have a number of buses that are available that the industry can put to work, but in order to do so, they first have to go through a regulatory process. they have to go through an inspection process, and they have to go through a permitting process and, of course, they don't have license plates on them because they've been removed from the insurance. >> host: so with that in mind, what would you like our guests to address? >> caller: well, here's the issue, if you create vast numbers of federal regulations and you post them up in the book of the cfrs, what happens is that the people who then take those regulations and proceed to try to enforce them, in effect, become tyrants who constrict the ability of private industry to react to something like hurricane katrina or something like hurricane sandy. >> host: we'll leave it there. and it probably goes to part of

the process that you guys, that both of you were talking about. senator. >> guest: well, flexibility is what he's talking about, and i think that's true that, you know, one of the things that can help that is peer review. and i know robert talked a little bit about too much peer review, but the fact is you've got to have peer review, you've got to have people in the industry that are talking to regulators who are setting these regulations out there to have a better understanding. ustr, for example, also is one of the questions when you talk about whether agencies are underfunded. nobody really thought about what sequestration was going to do to ustr. well, they don't have a bunch of other programs and other things. our trade representatives couldn't go to the table in some of these trade agreements, you know, because their budgets got cut from travel and a whole host of other things, so making sure things are tailor made to the different agencies and what they have to do critically important. when you talk about the

deployment of agencies for different things like health care, you know, some of our agencies are operating with, you know, last century's technology. if we don't invest in these agencies that are going to be implementing rules and regulations, you're exactly right, we're going to have agencies that are behind the curve in getting things out. i think some of those things are really important and providing flexibility with peer review, to this gentleman's point, is making sure that industry's at the table and making sure that they actually have a say so that when things these to be deployed, they can be deployed. >> host: mr. weissman. >> guest: i'm not exactly sure what the senator means when talking about peer review. when we issue major rules or even minor rules, there's a process. regular people are able to comment and industry's able to comment. it's actually an excellent way to have engagement by the public in the rulemaking process. so affected industry have a formal way to get in always, and they've got inform always to get

in. it's really hard to imagine a story about how industry doesn't have enough say in the rulemaking process. i just can't see what that example is or where industry's positions aren't aired properly. there are a lot of interesting things to be thought about with the relationship between innovation and regulation. and one way it incentivizes is by imposing new requirements on an industry to do things they weren't going to do on their own. it spurs them to invest in new things and invent new solutions to existing problems. so, for example, in the environmental area when the epa imposes a new clean air rule, industry pretty quickly figures out ways to do it dramatically cheaper than they thought it was possible until they actually got spurred by the new rule. you look at the case of removing lead from gasoline, industry at the time said it was going to cost 15-30 million jobs to remove lead from gasoline. well, it didn't. the industry figured out how to do it on the cheap, and that is pretty much the regular story for regulation. industry is as innovative as you

say, and they can respond to regulatory requirements. >> host: what about that idea? >> guest: well, it's not a bad idea, but the problem is making sure that that gets focusedded down to small businesses, because you're right, i've watched industries be very innovative. and they have hit not only sometimes federal regulations, but they've gone above and beyond in terms of energy efficiency and a whole host of other things. but those are mostly larger businesses, big industries that have the resources to be able to put in that kind of innovation. when you've got small businesses who are just trying to make ends meet and keep producing jobs in that community, we've got a great example of a guy up in pennsylvania. he's got a small business, a cleaners, he had to shut down a couple of his sites, but trying to, you know, comply, trying to build up all of the different things, the regulations that he had to meet -- taking out a loan, making an investment in that only to get to the point where over time he had reached

the regulations, and then all of a sudden the regulations changed on him, you know? he had all of what he had invested in getting to where the regulations were, and then all of a sudden they changed on him. that's not to say that we don't want to move forward, but the point being that regulations definitely affect small businesses different than they do big industry. and those big innovators out there -- it's not to say small businesses aren't good innovators, but often times they don't have the resources to be able to implement that. and that's why it's so important to engage small businesses from the regulators' standpoint, from government's standpoint to be helpful in compliance as opposed to punitive and just putting, you know, fines and fees just to raise revenues with enforcement. >> host: mr. weissman? >> guest: yeah, i have to disagree. i think small business is far more innovative than large businesses are and that most of the creative solutions to

regulatory requirements by and large come from small business. now, it is true that small business sometimes feel compliance costs or worries about compliance costs often because they're manipulated by big companies. so to take a different example, restaurants and bars across the country by and large small businesses worried very much about the impact of going smoke-free. those were legitimate worries. they were stoked very heavily by big tobacco, by philip morris and the other big tobacco companies. but real small business people thought they were going to lose opportunities of business be they were required to go smoke-free. well, cross the country cities and states have gone smoke-free, and it didn't cost the restaurants and bars any business at all. another example of where the fears may be real fears, often really stoked by big business outside interests, but when it comes down to actually putting the rules into place, costs don't materialize. >> guest: well, i disagree on that because, you're right, that's an emotional thing, and i think people eventually knew and

i certainly did that consumers would fall into that. of course, i've never smoked, and you're right, it's not something that -- [laughter] is great to be around around when you're eating, i don't think. but i'm talking about the kind of investment in most -- and you're right, small businesses are the innovators. and often times they are innovating to work with their clients or customers which are bigger businesses. and they're meeting those demands just like you said. but the problem is they don't have the kind of budget that a bigger industry, huge conglomerate might have. and so to be innovative and to put their resources into that, they've got to be able to have those resources. and in this economy if they're going to produce the jobs and innovation, they're going to have to have some flexibility and some say. most importantly, they're going to have to have a little bit of certainty about where these regs are coming from and how they're being delivered, and i just don't think they have that certainty, that confidence that

regulators know and understand what kind of wall they're up against in terms of funding and resources and the day-to-day. i can't tell you the number of small businesses that say i wish i could still sponsor the softball team or the little league team, or i wish i could still give to the united way in my community like i used to. i've had to let two workers go, i can't do that anymore, and most of it is trying to make sure that they are running a business, you know, as close to the regulations as possible because they're not afraid of compliance, they're afraid of the enforcement, that it's so punitive in a way. >> we will leave this discussion to go live to the u.s. capitol, senators speaking about their agenda for the rest of the year. majority leader -- [inaudible conversations] >> i'm very happy, satisfied that we had 12 republicans voted with us to move forward the

bipartisan budget agreement. i look forward to final passage of this sometime tomorrow to avert another dangerous and costly government shutdown in january. we have a lot to do before christmas, but we can get it done. be we just need a little bit of cooperation from republicans on other issues before us. if not, we're going to face another long series of votes that'll bring us into the weekend and at least the first part of next week. gridlock has got to end, and it is ending. the american people are satisfied that we're moving forward. we got this for the first time probably since 1986, we had a bipartisan budget agreement. that's progress. and we're going to continue working hard, we're going to -- and confirming nominees is part of our job. we've just spent far too much

time in the past doing it, and we're not going to do that in the future. we're going to get our work done before we go even if it means staying here this weekend. we could complete all of our work by thursday. it would be very easy to do, but we need some cooperation. how long we're here is entirely up to the republicans. that's all i have. >> senator reid -- [inaudible] the bipartisan budget act tomorrow going to herald any new era in -- [inaudible] >> request i really do. i think the example be is the by ryan and murray is significant. now, the budget agreement is not perfect. parts of it i would rather have written myself, but that's what

legislation's all about. be it's really -- it's really a step forward. and the american people like something to get done. this is a two-year budget process. that's great. senator mikulski just spoke in the caucus how happy she was. it's been exactly a year ago before -- since she took the chairmanship, and she's done a wonderful job teeing us up to the point we're here now. so, yes, i do. i think that to to have a significant number of republicans in the house and the senate vote against extremism is a step forward. >> senator reid, are you going to -- [inaudible] >> well, let's wait and see. we have a lot to do in january. we'll see what senator kerry, secretary kerry comes up with for progress on the deliberations during that period of time. [inaudible conversations] >> number of confirmations that

you'd be willing to do -- [inaudible] or is the -- [inaudible] >> i heard on my little news briefing i had today that senator grassley said let's do some of those nominations, and then let's leave them here, not send them back to the administration. i would be happy to take a look at something like that. but there are some we're going to do, for sure. irs, yellen, mayorkas -- >> we will leave these remarks to go back live to the senate this afternoon for further debate on the federal budget. a vote on final passage could come as soon as tomorrow afternoon. invoked in the senate today. i understand that there are many of my colleagues on this side of the aisle that are very unhappy with this deal and intend to vote against it. my only response to that is i respect their vote, but i'd like to know what we do in order to

avoid another shutdown of the government. the american people steadfastly reject a shutdown of the government, so i have concerns about the budget deal. everybody, i think, does because the nature of the way business is done. but to somehow vote against it without an alternative to keep the budget -- keep the government from shutting down, then i think lacks some intellectual integrity. so my support and vote will be based on two important facts. first, it will prevent another government shutdown, which we cannot put the american people through or the people of my state through again. and it goes a long way in alleviating the devastating impact of sequestration on our military. have no doubt that the sequestration has had a devastating effect on many

aspects of our ability to defend this nation. and don't just talk to our leadership, but talk to the men and women who are serving. they don't know where they're going to go next. the pilots aren't flying. the ships aren't sailing. and the training is not being conducted. and that is unfair to the men and women who are serving in our military, which i would remind you all have volunteered to serve this country in harm's way. so this budget deal will avert another government shutdown and reduce the impact of sequestration and reduce the deficit by roughly $23 billion without raising taxes. there's a noted conservative columnist that writes for the "wall street journal" who served in the reagan administration, and she observed in a "wall street journal" op-ed -- quote -- "the government is unable to

perform its minimal duty. instead congress and the administration lurch from crisis to crisis and debt ceiling battle. that gives the sense the process itself is broken and this lends an air of instability, a third worldness to the world's oldest continuing democracy. we can't even control our books, and we don't even try." she says that is my context for the ryan-murray budget deal. she continued, "should it be passed? yes, yes, and yes. the good things about it are very good. the idea that republicans and democrats are capable of coming to a budget agreement is good. the idea that they can negotiate and make concessions and accept gains is good. the idea the u.s. government is able to produce anything but acrimony is good. that we can still function even in the age of obama, good." as she noted, this agreement moves us in the right direction. let me tell you what it's better

than that. it's better than moving a few inches in the wrong direction and it's better than where we've been in a state of vegatative paralysis. just a week ago we witnessed the impact the government shutdown had on our constituents, and none of us want to go through that again. in my home state of kwra*d the impact -- state of arizona the impact was very significant. arizona lost $33 million in visitor spending. at grand canyon national park, food banks had to rush supplies to 2,200 employees of the concessionaires, of the concessionaires inside the park who were furloughed or laid off. arizona spent $500,000 in donations to reopen the grand canyon for five days during the shutdown. the list goes on and on and on.

and the approval rating, i would say to my friends on this side of the aisle, of us and our party plummeted. so the damage was severe. now we have an agreement, and i repeat again to my friends who will vote against this both on that side of the aisle and this side of the aisle, if you got a better idea, bring it up. let's consider it. let's vote on it. because the only alternative to this right now is a government shutdown. so let's not deceive ourselves about why we are voting and what we're voting on. i admit it's not perfect. i think it's caused heartburn for all of us. one potentially problematic provision -- and it is problematic -- would slow the growth of cost of living adjustments for working age -- and i family size working-age -- military retirees. let me point out that the colas

for working-age military retirees under the age of 62 will continue to grow after 2015, in most cases just more slowly than before. the fact is that the chairman of the senate armed services committee, one of the most admired and respected individuals in this senate, has state that had we will review this provision and we will review it in the context of the work has already being done on the senate armed services committee, and that is a review of all pay, benefits, and aspects of our military that, in the words of former secretary of defense, mr. gates, said that these entitlements in the military are -- quote -- "eating us alive." let me give you an example. in 2012, military retirees and survivor benefit recipients received $52 billion.

in ten years that will grow to $59 billion. by 2034, it will grow to $108 billion per year. from 2001 to 2011, payments to military retirees grew by 49%. every penny of it deserved. every penny of it that we proudly gave them. but i don't think there is any doubt that we're going to have to look at this whole issue of the pay, benefits and retirement and all of that, and members of the military in a prospective fashion. and i am confident that one of the first items next year will be taken up in the senate armed services committee is what we are passing today. but it's going to be brought up in the context of all of the aspects of personnel costs in the military today, keeping in mind that we have an all-volunteer service and we are

proud and pleased of the fact that we have america's finest in the military. but i can tell you for a fact that with us lurching from shutdown to shutdown, the draconian ehe effects of sequestration -- and i know my colleagues know in 2013 there is a more severe cut than at any time that these brave young men and women are getting sick and tired of not being able to do their job because of sequestration. and the best and the brightest already are making decisions as to what, whether to remain in the military or not. i'd like to mention one small aspect of this that i think is indicative. about 20 years ago there was a very large influx of pilots into the civilian airlines as airlines began to expand rather dramatically. that very large number of pilots are now nearing retirement age.

there is going to be a dramatic demand for airline pilots who, as we all know, are very well paid. we are offering pilots $225,000 to stay in and fly airplanes in the military. do you know that the vast majority of these young pilots, these aviators are not accepting that? and one of the reasons why they're not signing up is a lot of times they don't fly anymore. they're not operating anymore. and they're spending time away from their homes and their families without being able to do what they were trained to do. that is just a small example of the impact of sequestration on the military. and i wish all of my colleagues were members of the armed services committee and would listen to the testimony by our military leaders who tell us that they may not be able to defend this nation in the most efficient fashion already

because of the facts of sequestration. so all i can say is that if i had written this legislation, i think each one of us individually would have written it differently. but we didn't. and the option of shutting down the government, the option of further damage inflicted by sequestration, i hope would override the problems that we see with this agreement. i want to promise my colleagues that i will work as -- in every way with senator levin, under his leadership next year -- remember that this cola issue does not kick in until 2015. i will work with my colleagues and senator levin's leadership and senator inhofe to review this provision in this bill as to whether it's fair or not and whether it needs to be changed or not. so again i challenge my colleagues who will come to the floor and speak against this

agreement, tell me what we can vote on and pass and prevent another government shutdown, and then i will be glad to support it. madam president, i yield the floor. a senator: madam president? the presiding officer: the senator from virginia. mr. kaine: mr. president, i rise today also to talk about the bipartisan budget act of 2013 and to echo many of the reasons for support of that budget that were just spoken of by my colleague from arizona. this will be the first budget compromise in a divided congress since 1986, and compromise leaves every side with something they like and something they don't like, but it's what americans expect us to do. i applaud senator murray, our senate budget chair, for her leadership since our very first budget meeting in january of 2013. i applaud congressman ryan, the chair of the conference committee, for his work with his house colleagues. i was proud to be part of the budget committee in this

conference. americans want us to find a budget compromise to restore some certainty in a way that will help families, help businesses and help our economy. madam president, the day that i was sworn in as a senator, before i took the oath of office i was interviewed by a radio station in virginia, and they asked me what were the two things i wanted to do as a senator most immediately. and just last week i was reminded what i said. i said i want the senate to find a budget that will be a budget for all of congress. and i want to end sequester. i've done a lot of budgets as a governor and a mayor. it was challenging for me to understand how in february we were here without a federal budget, but on the verge of embracing nonstrategic across-the-board sequester cuts in a way that would hurt so many priorities that virginians care about. i gave my first speech on the senate floor in february to urge my colleagues to avoid sequester. and in the months since i

visited virginia shipyards, research universities, early childhood education centers and seen the effects that sequester has on virginians, on americans and on our economy. i'm acutely aware of the budget impacts and continuing challenges that are imposed upon this economy by gimmicks like sequester and the absence of a budget for four years compounds those things. we've seen the harm that sequester has done to so many of the priorities we care about. no manager would embrace indiscriminate across-the-board cuts because not everything the federal government does is worth everything else. you're going to be making cuts, they should be strategic. there are areas where we shouldn't be making cuts at all. we should be putting money money into the budget to do what is strategic and what's necessary. so what we've done with this budget deal is take a step back to regular budgetary order to give certainty to the economy, give certainty to our planners who work for the federal government. and while we are not replacing all of sequester -- and how much i wish we were -- we will do a

lot of to reverse some of its worst effects. the budget deal is good in a number of of ways. replaces $63 billion in sequestration cuts scheduled to go into effect in the next fiscal years, 2015 and 2014 and replaces those nonstrategic cuts with a targeted mix of spending reductions and new revenues. increases the top line discretionary spending level to $1.01 trillion and $1.04 trillion in 2013. it provides budget certainty for two years. this is something many of us in state governments, who have long state government have long embraced, because it provides more certainty. under the agreement, defense cuts of an additional $20 billion that was scheduled to take effect in january will not go into effect and we will find ways to restore funding and avert sequester cuts to non-defense accounts as well. the bill will let our chairwoman mikulski and appropriators who

write full appropriations bills to reverse the cycle of widespread continuing resolutions. many folks in federal government tell me is damaging -- as damaging as sequester is, the continuing resolution that locks in line items at last year or the year before that level instead of allowing flexibility to deal with these situations, that c.r.'s are as danger as sequester is, our appropriators can write full year appropriations bill. with budget certainty our d.o.d. will be able to plan and strategize for the future. we will fund critical readiness issues, will allow the navy in virginia to continue work on shipbuilding and repair which is so critical. and above all, we can show the american public that congress can work together in a bipartisan way, which is what we are all trying to do and what the american public asks us to do. now, we do now, as senator mccain and all have mentioned, that like any compromise, this budget resolution -- budget compromise is not perfect.

i would put on my top list of the most grievous challenges with the budget compromise -- not something that is in it but something not in it -- the extension of unemployment benefits to long-term unemployed, in this economy, all the economic data suggest that the extension of those benefits are not only good for the individuals, they're good for the economy itself. the suggestion is the expiration of these benefits could cost the country 200,000 to 300,000 jobs. the way we've dealt with retirement benefits for military u the senate budget that we all in this chamber, all the senators currently in the chamber worked so hard on to pass in march did not contain that provision u it was not the way we felt we should be dealing with the budget. we obviously, lik liked the send

we found a way to replace the sequester without make change to military pensions but it was added diewrgs the conference in order to find compromise with the house in order to move afford. but compromise is necessary because absent compromise, the very folks who will be affected by this particular caning will also be affected. because we've seen sequester and shutdown and furloughs affect military employees. we've seen it affect military operations. so the alternative of brinksmanship and shutdown is no better for our real estate tireees than this -- retirees understand that this provision. we've heard from secretary of defense hagel and chairman dempsey u i am pleased that the chairman of the armed phs is where i serve, senator levin, has signaled his intention. i am also disappointed that new federal employees will be

targeted for increased pension contributions. we've now increased those contributions in a tier level for new employees twice in the last three years. but again, while that compromise is challenging for those newly hired federal imleerks the alternative is nor challenging because we can't keep going through the uncertainty of shutdowns or furloughs. it wouldn't be fair to those employees to do that. so again we've replaced a portion of the nonstrategic cuts. that's the way we should go going afford. i'll continue to work to get rid of the rest of sequestration and replace them with similar targeted strategies a. for those reasons, madam president, i urge my colleagues to support this deal. while i wouldn't agree with all items of it, that's like any compromise i've ever engaged inn iinin my life. you have to give and expect the others to give as well. that was an important aspect of this compromise.

i'll say, madam clerk -- madam president, in conclusion, that another speact of this deal that i like very much is that it's unified the virginia congressional dell vision. we get along well. we work well. but there aren't many issues like this, big policy issues where all of us agree. in the house last week all 11 members of congress of both parties voted for this budget compromise. senator warner as a budget conferee together with all of us in the chamber right now are supporting this budget compromise. i am glad that my colleagues in virginia pulled together. i think it is a tribute to the fact that wreef all seen the impacts that budget uncertainty and sequester have caused. i am glad that we seem to be on the verge of providing that sense of certainty that will be good for the public and the commitment of with that, madam president, i yield the floor.

and i note the absence of a quorum. the presiding officer: the clerk will call the roll. quorum call:

mr. harkin: madam president? the presiding officer: the senator from iowa. mr. harkin: i ask that further proceedings under the quorum call be dispensed with. the presiding officer: without objection. mr. harkin: madam president, i want to take the floor today because i am very disturbed by the apparent shift in attitude by many elected leaders, including some in this body and in the house, the attitude

towards people who do the work that i call -- that make the country run, that makes this country run. they don't sit behind desks. they don't wear coats and ties every day or wonderful clothes. they don't sit in air-conditioned offices. they don't clip coupons. they just do hard work. it's people you run into every day when you go to the local coffee shop and order your latte or you maybe go out to lunch and you have lufnlg a lunch at a ret or you hail a taxi or maybe you get on the bus or the subway. or maybe now since it's near christmastime, you go to the department store, you do your christmas shopping and it is the person behind the counter. you think that person is only

there for you, when you go there to buy your christmas present. think about it. he's probably been standing therethere there all day long. after you get out of there, they're still standing there to wait on somebody else. the people that just -- you know, they're not the big wheels in our society. they never, ever thought of themselves as being big wheels. but they are the cogs and the inner workings that make our country run. well, they're used to be fairly universal agreement that these people are the backbone of this curntion the foundation of our economy -- of this country, the foundation of our economy. that our job as elected fishes s elected officials is to make sure these people have a shot at the american dream. if you work hard and play by the rules, you should be able to support your family, put a roof over your head, put some moneywamoneyaway for a rainy da.

we used to agree that if you lose your job through no fault of your own, you should have some support to get you through the rough patch while you're looking for new work. we used to agree not too long ago on both sides of the aisle that no child in this country shoulshould go to bed hungry at night. i say "both sides." i remember dole and mcgovern, the great work they did on hunger in america. in recent years, it's been alarming to see how these fundamental principles and values are being attacked in our public discourse. for many, the new attitude is you're on your own. if you struggle, even if you face insurmountable challenges, well, it's probably your own fault. madam president, it just seems

to me that there's a harshness abroad in our land, a harshness that i think of as sort of born of a benign neglect, a harshness born of a benign neglect toward those americans who just have tough lives. marginally employed or they're just down on their luck. it used to be we only heard harsh rhetoric like that from radio talk-show partisans who are trying to get their ratings up. sadly now it's become a part of our everyday conversation, even here in the united states congress. we hear how minimum-wage workers don't deserve a fair minimum wage increase because, well, they're just want worth $10.10 an hour. -- just not worth $10.10 an hour. we heard unemployed workers should be cut off from unemployment insurance they've

become -- quote -- "dependent." at a time when there are three job seekers for every job, we hear it's critical to take away food assistance from millions of individuals so that supposedly if you take away their food food, take away their unemployment insurance well, they'll somehow now learn the redemptive power of work, as i if -- as if young mothers working service jobs, laid-off factory workers delivering newspapers, unemployed families receiving snap benefits, that somehow they need to be lectured by members of the congress about work. these people know what it's like to work. what happened to our respect, our respect for the people who do the work and want to work in our country? what happened to our values, the basic moral truth that people

shouldn't go hungry in the richest country in the world? whence comes this harshness of ours, reminiscent really of the late 19th century workplace in america? how did we get to the point where many of us value the work of day traders pushing paper on wall street but we ignore the contributions of the people who work in our day-care centers, educate our kids, care for our elderly in the twilight of their lives? what about their value? i wish that people who were pushing these harsh -- this harsh rhetoric could talk to terrence, a father of three in kansas city, missouri. he works 50 hours a week. don't lecture him about working. 50 hours a week, two jobs, one at pizza hut, one at burger king to try to make ends meet. he can barely insure his

15-year-old car or purchase shoes for his three girls. last year he lost his house. he told "the washington times" -- quote -- "we work hard for companies that are making millions. we're not asking for the world. we want to make enough to make a decent living. we deserve better. if they respect us and pay us and treat us right, it will lift up the whole economy." now, i'll bet ya terrence never got a degree in economics, but he says it better and understands it better than a lot of these economic thinkers down at the federal -- down at our big banks and these economic think tanks. or they should speak with edward, a father in illinois. both he and his fiancee earn the minimum wage. here's what he says. "we have three children, our paychecks barely cover the necessities, like a roof over our heads, gas and lights and clothes for the kids. we wouldn't be able to make it without food stamps and a

medical card. there's constant stress because we're living paycheck to paycheck and never have enough money. everyone needs help sometimes, especially since the economy is so bad and it's made life even harder for working people. this isn't about needing more money for luxury things. we need a raise in the living wage in order to survive." so, madam president, edward and terrence clearly are not lazy. they're doing exactly what we might expect them to do, what we've told them they must do to make it in this country. but they're slipping further and further and further behind through no fault of their own. the fact is, our economy has changed. it's not working for many families right now. we can't stick our heads in the sand and pretend that it's not true. and we shouldn't suggest that it's edward and terrence's fault or that their kids don't deserve to eat or to wear shoes.

we, as elected officials, have an obligation to recognize the fundamental truths about the challenges that working families face in america. we have a duty to support policies that will help these families both weather the continuing economic storm and also build a brighter future for their children. now, first we have to acknowledge the truth, that while we are slowly moving in the right direction, the economy has not recovered, especially for those at the bottom of the economic ladder, the edwards and terrences and others. jobs are still scarce. 4 million people have been pounding the pavement for at least six months looking for new work. there are three job seekers for every job. our economy is still millions of jobs short of what we need. in the past when the job market was this challenging, politicians on both sides of the aisle agreed that the federal

government had an obligation to step in and help the long-term unemployed while they're struggling to find work. in fact, the current federal unemployment insurance program was put in place in 2008 under a republican president, george w. bush, and we did it when the unemployment rate was 5.6%. today the unemployment rate officially is 7%. we know it's higher than that. that's the official. but unofficially, if we include folks who want to work full time but can only find part-time work, those who have given up actively looking for work, the rate is actually 13.2%. that's the real unemployment rate in america. so given that the unemployment rate remains high in many parts of the country, my colleague, senator jack reed, and i have introduced a modest proposal to extend the current system of federally funded extended unemployment insurance until the

end of 2014. it's vitally important that we do so because it's going to expire in two weeks. almost 5 million american workers and their families will exhaust their state unemployment insurance and lose their last lifeline before the end of next year. we are their last lifeline. they're counting on us. how can we think about turning our backs on them? but instead of joining a call to action, some of my colleagues on the other side of the aisle are actually suggesting that the extension of unemployment insurance will hurt jobless americans. i was rather shocked when i heard this on a sunday talk program by our colleague from kentucky, senator paul. here's what he said.

i got the quote or you can get it on youtube. here's what he said. "when you allow people to be on unemployment insurance for 99 weeks, you're causing them to become part of this perpetual unemployed group in our economy, and while it seems good, it actually does a disservice to the people you're trying to help." a disservice? i don't understand. i don't understand this kind of harshness for people who are out of work, who have paid in to unemployment insurance and they're seeking now to get their insurance payments. first of all, this is not quite right, 99 weeks. the maximum is 73 weeks and that's only for those who have been unemployed the longest and it's only in two states.

only two states have 73 weeks. those are the two states with the highest unemployment rates. rest of the states have acces access -- the rest of the states have access to at least 63 weeks. in my state of iowa, it's only 40 weeks, not 99. secondly, unemployment insurance is a desperately needed program. let's be clear, unemployed workers are not living high on the hog on these insurance payments. it averages about $310 per week nationally. well, i guess that figure's out if you're on it for a year, that's about $15,000 a year. now, there are some that are less than that. mississippi, for example, it's 193 bucks a week. not 310, 193. truth is, they're barely subsisting, barely hanging on. they're not sitting around watching tv. why? because there's only one way you can collect uninsurance -- unemployment insurance benefits.

that's, number one, if you have worked and paid in to the syst system. so you've already earned the right to access the insurance that you paid for. and, secondly, you can only collect on the insurance if you are actively working -- looking for a job. actively looking for a job. so contrary to the statement of our colleague from kentucky, it is not a disservice to proip thiprovidethis meager benefit te long-term unemployed, a benefit that they've earned. the only disservice is to float this absurd myth that jobless americans want to be unemployed. i think it's just offensive to suggest that they're lazy and don't want to work. to me, it's just morally repugnant to conclude that they

will somehow be miraculously better able to find a job if we simply let their kids go hungry. harshness. harshness. that same harsh kind of thinking has also crept in to our national debate about the most fundamental aspect of our social safety net, food assistance. millions of american families depend upon the snap program, the supplemental nutrition assistance program. it's what everybody thinks of as food stamps. such a basic kind of thing, right? having enough to eat? in this country? again, many of these people are in working families. in 2011, 41% of snap participants lived in a household where someone was working. but over the last several years, my republican colleagues have sought again and again and again

to slash food assistance for these families. the house-passed farm bill -- house-passed farm bill, engineered by the republicans in the house, proposed cutting food stamps by $40 billion over the next 10 years. now, contrast to that what we passed in the senate, under the leadership of senator stabenow. we passed a farm bill that made some cuts over the 10 years, a little over $4 billion. that was supported on both sides of the aisle, the farm bill was, by most people on both sides. house bill was only supported by the republicans. $40 billion the republicans wanted to cut versus $4 billion in the senate. that would have cut 3.8 million individuals from the snap program next year. other parts of their proposal would cut off food stamps and benefits in the future for some

of the poorest adults, people for many of whom snap is the only income assistance they ha have. or it would result in throwing 210,000 children out of their free school meals program, raise the level so that low-income kids would be cut out of their free lunch program. yet another provision that the house republicans put into their bill would have provided strong financial incentives to states to kick people off of the snap program. house farm bill would allow states to cut off snap benefits to most adults receiving or applying for snap, including parents with children as young as 1-year-old if they are not working or participating in a work or training program for at least 20 hours a week. that was it, no exclusion for

mothers with little kids. the house bill meant that mothers with young children still in diapers could be cut off from food stamps, from the snap program even if they don't have affordable child care. imagine that, forcing a mother to choose between employment and safe child care for her child. harsh. harshness, harshness. and again, as i said, this isn't even realistic. there are always three job seekers for every job. 48 states have a waiting list for our largest job training program, the work force investment act. 48 states waiting list. so you're going to tell this young mother with a child, you can't get adequate childcare, but you have got to be in a job training program. well, the lists are so