>> guest: yeah. that's a good question. this is like a science of analyzing everything that she says along those lines. i heard that she had said in a private speech with a hedge fund in new york last year the question was a good one, they said so if there was, if someone was to run for president logistically, how would it work? when would they need to decide? and she had said that person would, hypothetically, need to decide by the middle of 2014. so, you know, we'll be watching that carefully. >> host: we've been talking with amy chozick, the author of the piece on the cover of this week's new york times magazine. thank you so much for being with us this morning. >> guest: thanks for having me. >> and now live to the senate floor where senators are returning from a weeklong break. lawmakers will work today on flood insurance legislation, possibly work on the farm bill. and now live to the senate floor. undertaking to know and do your will.

when they go through difficult seasons, may they remember that a bountiful harvest is certain if they persevere with integrity. lord, give them a faith that will trust you even when the darkness is blacker than a thousand midnights. may they always find strength in your providential leading. we pray in your strong name amen. the presiding officer: please join me in reciting the pledge of allegiance to our flag. i pledge allegiance to the flag of the united states of america and to the republic for which it stands, one nation under god, indivisible, with liberty and justice for all.

the presiding officer: the clerk will read a communication to the senate. the clerk: washington d.c., january 27, 2014. to the senate: under the provisions of rule 1, paragraph 3, of the standing rules of the senate, i hereby appoint the honorable christopher s. murphy, a senator from the state of connecticut, to perform the duties of the chair. signed: patrick j. leahy, president pro tempore. mr. reid: mr. president? the presiding officer: the majority leader. mr. reid: i move to proceed to calendar number 294. the presiding officer: the clerk will report. the clerk: motion to proceed to calendar number 294, s. 1926, a bill to delay the implementation of certain proefbgs provisions of the biggert-waters flood insurance act of 2012. mr. reid: mr. president, 5:30 today there will be a roll call vote on the motion to invoke cloture on the motion to proceed to the flood insurance bill. i'm told that s. 1950 is at the desk due for second reading.

the presiding officer: the clerk will read the title of the bill for the second time. the clerk: 1950, a bill to improve the provision of medical services and benefits to veterans and for other purposes. mr. reid: i would object to any further proceedings with respect to this bill at this time. the presiding officer: objection having been heard, the bill will be placed on the calendar. mr. reid: mr. president, as i announced earlier today, the senate will vote in -- at 5:30 to advance legislation that will protect millions of homeowners and small businesses from drastic increases in flood insurance premiums. this bipartisan measure will save many homeowners thousands and thousands of dollars a year and protect america's recovering housing market. since higher premiums would kick in whenever a home is sold, still struggling housing markets across the country could stumble if congress allows flood insurance rates to skyrocket. and that will happen as we move

this legislation. the bill before the senate will preserve the current rates until the federal emergency management agency submits a plan to keep premiums reasonable and provide stability to homes and for business owners. i want to thank senators menendez and landrieu as well as senator isakson for their leadership on this issue. their bill will cut through the red tape and give consumers better and cheaper options when they shop for insurance. so i hope the senate can wrap work up very quickly on this measure. we've tried for weeks to get an agreement to move forward on it but we're never quite there. always, mr. president, need a little more time. that time has run out. homeowners deserve certainty and the senate faces a substantial workload over the next three weeks. on tomorrow president obama will address congress and the nation in the annual state of the union address. i like the american people look forward to hearing the president's vision to create an

economy in which the middle class grows and prospers because every individual should have a fair shot at success. the senate must consider critical national security and judicial nominations in the coming weeks. with the help of my republican colleagues we could process these nominations quickly and painlessly without late night or weekend votes. as always, we'll depend upon the noble cooperation we receive from the republicans. this work period the senate will consider a farm conference report. this legislation is a compromise reached thanks to the leadership of chairwoman stabenow and will reduce the deficit and cut waste and fraud while protecting hungry children and families. the senate will also debate legislation to effectively prevent and punish sexual assault in the nation's armed forces. we have competing views of this. senator mccaskill and senator

gillibrand. the democrats will continue our fight to restore benefits to 1.6 million americans looking for work during difficult economic times. and the last two weeks since republicans filibustered a bill to restore this important lifeline an additional 150,000 americans have lost their emergency unemployment benefits. for many families already suffering through hard times, a loss of $300 a week has meant going without food, turning down the heat on freezing days or staring down homelessness. one nevada woman, a vietnam veteran in her 60's worked all her life and raised her family and said she's afraid she'll end up on the streets if washington doesn't restore her emergency benefits. this is what she wrote to me -- and i quote -- "it's not that i don't want to work. i'm unable to procure a job. i do feel it might be my age but i'm more energetic than some

people i know. please continue to work to get this passed as i'm fearful i will end up homeless." her situation is not unique. thousands of veterans are looking for work. they have been kicked off the unemployment rolls and in nevada where tphoeufplt -- unemployment is still almost 9%, 21,000 people have been cut off from these benefits. unemployment tipped up slightly in las vegas last month and as long as there are three job seekers for every available position we owe it to our americans to lend a helping hand during this emergency. would the chair announce the business of the day? the presiding officer: under the previous order the leadership time is reserved, under the previous ordered senate will resume consideration of the motion to proceed to s. 1926. mr. reid: i would note the absence of a quorum. the presiding officer: the clerk will call the roll.

quorum call:

quorum call:

quorum call: the presiding officer: the senator from maine. ms. collins: mr. president, i ask unanimous consent proceedings under the quorum be vitiated. the presiding officer: without objection. ms. collins: thank you, mr. president. mr. president, i also ask

unanimous consent that i be permitted to speak for up to 15 minutes as if in morning business. the presiding officer: without objection. ms. collins: thank you, mr. president. mr. president, 50 years ago on january 27, 1964, senator margaret chase smith of maine announced her candidacy for president of the united states. the following july at the republican national convention in san francisco, the great lady from maine became the first woman in history to have her name entered into nomination by a major party for our nation's highest office. i rise to commemorate this remarkable leader and the significant milestone in our history.

at the time of her announcement, senator smith was in her 24th year in congress and was an established ground breaker. she was the first woman elected to both the house and the senate, and the first to serve on the armed services committee. she was the woman who gave other women the opportunity to pursue careers in the military. due to her early and energetic support for the space program, she has been called the woman who put a man on the moon. her courageous declaration of conscience delivered in the senate on june 1, 1950, turned the tide against mccarthyism and reminded all americans of

our nation's core values of free expression and independent thought. mr. president, senator smith made her presidential announcement in a speech at the women's national press club in washington. yes, mr. president, there was a separate press club for women in those days. it was an important address in which she described both the progress that america had made against bigotry, prejudice, extremism and hatred, as well as the challenges that remained. but margaret chase smith saved the best for last. after telling her audience of the flood of letters that she had been receiving from all over the country urging her to run

for president, senator smith described the reasons offered by her supporters, such as she had more experience at the national level than any of the other confirmed candidates, she had the stature that could break the barrier against women being seriously considered for president, she would provide a moderate, middle-of-the-road option in an election that was shaping up as one between a very conservative and very liberal philosophy. then she described the reasons that she should not run. the widespread contention that the presidency was a man's job, her lack of financial resources and a professional political organization, and the fact that

the odds were shacked heavily against her. senator smith said that she found the reasons offered against running far more compelling than those in favor. so imagine the surprise of her audience when she said that because of those very reasons, she had decided to enter the new hampshire primary. senator smith's campaign was off and running, and what a campaign it was. senator smith accepted no money from anyone. all contributions, whether they were large or small, were returned to sender. she took to the campaign trail only when the senate was not in session in order to preserve her perfect record of never missing

a roll call vote, and to keep the pledge of dedicated service she had made to the people of maine. her campaign motto was "there is nothing more effective than a handshake and a little conversation." as the consequence of her self-imposed financial and time restraints, senator smith did not win a primary. but in the one primary where she was able to campaign somewhat extensively, the state of illinois, for all of two weekends and a total expenditure of $85, she finished a strong second in a field of six. she lost only to the eventually

nominee, barry goldwater. with 25% of the vote, she came in far ahead of such well-known candidates as richard nixon, nelson rockefeller, and henry cabot lodge. it is intriguing to think what she might have done with a more traditional campaign. at the republican national convention in san francisco that we're,in senator smith's name was entered into nomination by senator george akin of vermont. he told the delegates that senator smith's integrity, ability, common sense, and courage made her the best qualified person you ever voted for. on the first ballot, 27 delegates did vote for margaret chase smith from the great state

of maine. unlike the other candidates, senator smith did not release her delegates to the landslide victor, senator goldwater. that was not done out of spite. indeed, she campaigned earnestly for him in the general election. it was done because she wanted to demonstrate, she wanted the historical record to show that a woman had been given serious consideration for the presidency of this country. mr. president, many words have been spoken over many years in attempts to describe the character of senator margaret chase smith. perhaps the best were offered by the candidate herself on that campaign trail a half century

ago. she said "i have few illusions and no money, but i'm staying for the finish. when people keep integrity telling you you can't do a thing, you kind of want to try." mr. president, on this milestone anniversary i'm honored to celebrate an extraordinary woman from maine who tried and failed in one endeavor but in doing so inspired generations of americans with her strength and determination, and demonstrated as she once said, that a woman's place is everywhere. today, mr. president, the senate has a record 20 women senators.

in a sense, each of us owes a debt to senator margaret chase smith, but none more so than i. you see, i first met senator smith when i was a high school senior from caribou, maine. i was selected as one of two students to come to washington as part of the senate youth program sponsored by the william randolph hearst foundation, a program that still exists today. i remember how excited i was to see senator smith and her graciousness in inviting us into her office and spending nearly two hours with me. as the presiding officer can appreciate, for any of us to spend two hours with anyone is

remarkable nowadays, but margaret chase smith carved out that time to talk with me. and recently her library sent me copies of her appointment book for that day so that i could see that my appointment with her was listed and preserved for all time. she talked to me not about what it was like being the only woman in the senate. she talked to me instead about her service on the armed services committee, about what we could do to create more jobs in this country, and most of all, about her famous declaration of conscience in which she stood up against the smear campaign and the excesses

of senator joseph mccarthy. through that speech, she taught us all to stand tall for what we believe in and to speak out against injustice and bigotry. i remember, mr. president, when i left her office i was so thrilled and inspired, and i remember thinking that women could do anything. now, this was back in 1971. and although i came from a family with wonderful role models in both my mother and my father, who were so active in their community and in their state, there were a lot of other messages about that time

that raised doubts in the minds of girls growing up about whether we could, in fact, be whatever we wanted to be. so that message that i learned from margaret chase smith was so important in shaping who i am today. and although i did not know it at the time at all, that meeting with margaret chase smith shortly after i turned 18 as a high school senior taught me that i could achieve my dream and in many ways, it was the first step on a journey that led me to run for her seat in the united states senate 25 years later. and today, i am so proud that

the desk at which i stand, the desk that i use and is assigned to me on the senate floor once belonged to the legendary senator from maine, margaret chase smith. what a wonderful role model she was to me the entire time i was growing up, when she was representing the state of maine with such integrity, skill, and courage. and how fortunate i feel to hold her seat in the united states senate. so today it gives me grate pride as wel --great pride as well ast pleasure to inform my colleagues that this is the 50th anker a anniversary of the day that senator margaret chase smith of

maine became the first woman in history to announce her candidacy for president of the united states and later that year to be the first woman to have her name placed in nomination by a major political party. let us celebrate this day, mr. president, as we also celebrate the presence of a record number of women in the united states senate. i believe that would have made senator smith very proud. thank you, mr. president. mr. president? i would suggest the absence of a quorum, and i yield the floor. the presiding officer: the clerk will call the roll. quorum call:

the presiding officer: the senator from alabama. mr. sessions: i would ask consent that the quorum call be dispensed with. the presiding officer: without objection. mr. sessions: mr. president, the immigration issue that the country is wrestling with is broad and deep and has huge ramifications in a host of areas, but one area that has just been ignored systematical systematically, it seems to me -- at least to a degree that is unacceptable -- is the impact a massive increase in immigration to america will have on the already declining wages and job prospects of americans who are hurting today. that's just a fact that needs to be discussed. we need to be honest about it. prime minister david cameron in the united kingdom has announced major reductions in immigration, said there may be more. he just said, we can't expect

that foreign workers would take jobs that we need to be training britains to do. how simple and valiant a concept is that? so we're talking about legislation that could shift the power, wealth, from working people to business people, to corporations, because it will shift, if not done properly -- and we believe in immigration; we're not opposed to immigration; it just needs to be done at the level and in the proper way so that our workers are not so adversely impacted, as would occur if the senate bill were to become law, for example. thank goodness the house is saying they're not going to pass that bill. so president obama is preparing to deliver a state of the union address tomorrow night in which he will address the continued

financial collapse of the american middle class, much of which has occurred on his watch. it started before he took office. since 2000 until today, the average wage of working americans has declined. adjusted for inflation, it is negative. in the last two or three years since the recession that's supposed to be over and has been announced is over, that decline has accelerated, and professor borjas and others have tagged a lot of that result as occurring because of a substantial increase in immigration that's been occurring in america. so if the president wishes to demonstrate a sincere concern for struggling workers, then he must recognize the negative

impact his immigration policies are having on wage earners throughout the country right now. according to harvard professor george borjas, the nation's leading expert and economist on immigration, himself a cuban immigrant from cuba as a young man, professor borjas said every dollar of increased profit for companies that use immigrant labor is offset by dollar in lost wages for americans competing with that immigrant labor. think about that. in fact, he scores that a $400 billion benefit for businesses who are lobbying for this bill, they and their political activist allies lobbying for this bill, they definitely receive a financial benefit. he estimates it at about $400

billion. and a little over $400 billion. and he estimates based on rigorous data. he is a harvard-trained economist and specializing in immigration. he sees that that is paid for virtually every dollar of it by reduced wages of american workers. that's the way, colleagues, the free enterprise system works. you have more cotton in america, the price of cotton goes down. you bring in more labor than we've had before, the price of labor comes down. that's just the way it works. we have not eliminated the law of supply and demand. the law of supply and demand dictates that an increased supply of workers will result in a reduced cost of hiring workers. the president has pushed for new federal wage controls, going to have a mandated wage now by the

federal government, and extended unemployment jobless benefits is effectively an admission that his policies and what's happening in america have cut wages and reduced the ability of americans to get jobs. but these measures that he's proposing are really treating the symptoms. why do we have to have unpress di--unpress unprecedented unemployment benefits? why? because we don't have enough jobs in america for the people who are applying for them. that's why. why do we have to raise the wage by law? why aren't wages going up, a as they have throughout most of the history of our country, naturally through the supply and demand? could it be this we've had, as professor borjas said, for the last 30 years an incredible

inflow of workers that are competing for these jobs every single year? one cannot return to full employment and rising wages for workers at all skill levels without tightening the labor market. we've got a loose labor market. we've got a surplus of people looking for jobs. gene sperling, the president's top advisor on the economy, said just a few weeks ago that we have three workers applying for each one job that exists in america. why in the world then would we want to bring in and allow businesses to demand increased numbers of low-skilled workers? the present plan will provide companies an incentive to hire even fewer american workers and less likely to hire a person

who's been unemployed for a long time, the long-term unemployed. the u.s. has already formally admitted more immigrants, largely lesser skilled, in the last ten years than any prior ten-year history -- ten-year period in america's history. so the question every reporter, pun dirkts anpundit, and lawmakk is this: how does the president think it will help americans trying to climb into the middle class to pass an immigration plan that would double the number of immigrant workers competing against them for jobs and wages? the single-largest category in our budget right now is welfare and poverty support programs, helping people who have lower incomes. including state contributions, my budget committee staff has discovered that we spend more

than $1 trillion on federal means-tested support programs each year, over $1 trillion. that's twice the defense budget. more than social security, more than medicare. a record one in five households today receive food stamps in 1 n 2013. one in five. the majority of them are working age. that's the first time that's happened. the majority of recipients on food stamps are in the working-age groups. our mission is to begin transitioning these struggling workers into good jobs with rising wages. instead, the president proposes to increase federal spending even more to sustain millions on welfare while increasing the supply and the admission of

lower-skilled immigrants to take the available jobs that exist. house leaders are rushing to assemble a plan that is splar - that is similar to the president's. i hope not. this would be the worst thing they could do at such a time. instead, the democratic senate having spoken, the republican house must stand up, expose the president's disastrous policies, and advocate a new direction that promotes assimilation, rising wages, and a growing middle class for all americans, including those who've recently immigrated, including hispanics, including african-americans. the so our lower-skilled workers are the ones that are adversely affected the most from increased flows of immigrant labor into the country. and i just hope that we'll

consider this and talk honestably it because it's not going away. it's a reality. and the suggestions that somehw this won't happen is not so. the congressional budget office, in scoring the senate bill, concluded that it would pull down wages of americans for 20 years. the last thing this senate or any president of the united states should do would be to advocate and promote a policy that will pull down wages. we need to be looking for ways to increase wages. when you're in a hole, the first thing you do is stop digging. don't make it worse. don't create four, five applicants for every one job that exists in america. so i hope the president will talk about that. i challenge him to talk about it. and i'm going to watch what he says. the and i expecand i expect hirs

president of the united states, aaddressing a joint session of congress, to be accurate about his discussion of this issue. it is important to america. we believe in immigration, but we want a lawful system of immigration, an immigration system that first and foremost does not damage, hurt, and weaken the financial position of already struggling american workers. isn't that our first responsibility, that we should create this lawful system in a way that serves the long-term interests, the legitimate long-term interests of the united states of america are and all the -- the united states of america and all the people that are in it, not just the special ones with special political power. i thank the chair and would yield the floor and note the absence of a quorum. the presiding officer: the clerk will call the roll.

quorum call:

quorum call:

mr. nelson: mr. president? the presiding officer: the senator from florida. mr. nelson: i ask that, unanimous consent that the quorum call be lifted. the presiding officer: without objection. mr. nelson: mr. president, i ask consent that ryan orgera, a sea grant fellow in my office, be granted floor privileges for the duration of the flood insurance bill. the presiding officer: without objection, so ordered. mr. nelson: mr. president, i want to speak about the flood insurance bill, and i am speaking with a smile on my face

because i believe we have the 60 votes to break the filibuster so we can get to the bill. and i would hope that if we exceed that 60-vote threshold that indeed those that have been trying to torpedo this bill would then, instead of stringing us out all week making us go through all the parliamentary procedure, if we have the votes, let's get it passed. the problem is going to be down at the other end of that hallway, because the speaker of the house has already said that he doesn't like it, but what he's going to find out that he doesn't like is a lot of the members of the house of representatives whose constituents are facing tenfold increases in their flood

insurance because of something that was tacked on to a transportation bill that was a year ago. and thus, biggert-waters, the sponsors in the house of this particular law that now is causing these unforeseen and never expected huge increases, we can rectify that today. and at 5:30 we're going to have the vote on the motion for cloture to cut off debate so that we can get to the bill. now what does this bill do? it's real easy. it delays these giant rate hikes for four years and it mandates on fema an affordability study

so that we can see -- i mean, you can say you want rates to go up and be actuarially sound, but if what happens is what's been happening, that people can't afford it because it's ten times as much or that because it is so high, it completely drives up the real estate market, well, that's not helping anybody. that's hurting a lot of people. and it's hurting our economic recovery just at the moment in which the real estate market is coming back all along the coast of america as well as along the rivers and lakes, the very places that flood insurance is necessary for a homeowner or a business. now, i might say that,

mr. president, today, as i was in florida, the temperature was in the 60's moving to the 70's. i got off the plane here. it's in the 30's. but the chill winds of biggert-waters, the flood insurance rate, gargantuan rate hikes, those chilling winds are not only killing real estate sales, it is killing commerce and it is putting an impossible financial burden on our people. now we can take care of this at 5:30. and then those who have opposed us the whole way as we've tried a handful of times to bring up this legislation asking unanimous consent, well finally

thanks to the leader, he's forced the issue and we're going to vote on the cutting off of debate today. i have several documented cases along florida's gulf coast where the premiums for flood insurance have gone up ten times. in one particular case, in pinellas county chronicled by "the tampa bay times," the premium was $4,500. it's gone to $45,000. no homeowner can endure and afford that kind of increasing. in another case, a $1,400 flood insurance premium, it's gone to $14,000. it's the same thing. we should be around here

promoting homeownership. but if the poor homeowner has a mortgage because they've gotten a loan from the bank, what is the bank going to do to require some security for their loan? they're going to require flood insurance. and so how can we expect a homeowner to have to go through this? now, you can say this is a subsidized program. it is. but the big losses in the program has been because of very unusual climactic events. in the first place, it was hurricane katrina. that was an ordinary garden-variety category 3 hurricane. those of us in florida understand hurricanes, but what happened on this hurricane, it went to the east of new orleans,

so the counter clockwise winds were not coming directly from the gulf. they were coming in over new orleans over lake pontchartrain. it caused the lake to rise. it filled up the canals. the water rose in the canals. the water pressure against the sides of the canals increased, and there were faulty canal dikes, and it breached in a couple of places, and then all the water flooded into parts of new orleans and filled up the bowl of new orleans. that was a huge loss to the federal flood insurance program. i mean, that was enough. and this was just a year ago, an extraordinary event, about a

category 1 storm, extraordinary because it hit in the winter, and where did it hit? it hit the highly urbanized coast of new jersey, new york, and parts of new england. and as a result, huge losses there, and people that were desperate to have assistance and now look what those folks are facing with regard to the flood insurance hikes. we can take care of all of this. we can take care of it at 5:30 this afternoon as we start the process of getting on the bill. and so i would urge all of our senators, because sooner or later, somebody in your state is going to have a flood and they're going to get remapped. they may not be paying those

rates now, but they're going to get remapped because of those floods, and then they're going to get hit with these unaffordable gargantuan rate hikes on the premiums of federal flood insurance. this is the right thing to do, mr. president. i see my colleague from utah. he used to tell me they don't ever have floods there, but i'll bet they do, because even though utah is a dry state, i know utah's got some water, because it supports a population the likes of which is represented by the most distinguished and my dear personal friend, senator hatch. and with that, mr. president, i would yield the floor. mr. hatch: mr. president? the presiding officer: the senator from utah. mr. hatch: i thank my dear colleague. he is a very close personal friend of mine. i have to say, too, we have had our floods out there, too. thank goodness, we have had some of these things to help us, no

question about it. the last one was right down there in st. george. it was a very, very devastating thing to the people. i appreciate his work. mr. president, i rise today to speak on a legislative proposal i introduced yesterday with two of my colleagues, senator richard burr and dr. tom coburn. this represents our vision for an alternative to obamacare. let me start by saying something that most americans from utah to north carolina to oklahoma know to be true. obamacare just is not working. try as he might during tomorrow night's state of the union address, president obama will not be able to convince the american people that his health care law is anything other than an unmitigated disaster. this horribly misguided law puts government between people and their doctors. it includes over $1 trillion in

new taxes and new unsustainable -- and a new unsustainable entitlement. it includes mandates and regulations that have forced too many americans off their health plans and businesses to cut back on hiring. it has done next to nothing to put a brake on skyrocketing health care costs that are hitting every family in this country. now, the three of us knew there was another way, a better way, a way that doesn't need 2,700 pages of government programs and mandates to enact commonsense reforms that the american people want and need. let me say, mr. president, that these two senators that i have joined with on this proposal have been looking at this for some time, as have i. i commend them for their leadership. our plan rests on four simple principles. first, repeal obamacare with all its costly mandates, taxes and

regulations in its entirety. second, reduce costs by taking the government out of the equation, and instead empowering consumers to make choices about their own health care. third, provide common sense consumer protections to protect individuals with preexisting conditions. and finally, fourth, reform our broken medicaid system by giving states more flexibility to provide the best coverage for their citizens. we are confident that our plan will accomplish all of this, mr. president, and it would do so without adding one red cent to our $17 trillion debt. these four principles are the core of what we unveiled today. they are smart and makes sense and they are what the people of my state have been looking for, and i think the people of every state. we start with the biggest barrier to health care in this country, and that happens to be

skyrocketing health costs. too many families cannot afford to buy insurance or to see a doctor, and why? because of costs. we recognize this, and our plan would give people affordable options that really meet their needs by harnessing the power of the marketplace, not through washington-directed mandates. with more options in the private insurance marketplace, particularly in small groups and individual markets, on top of greater consumer protections and more transparency. the american people would be better able to purchase coverage that is right for them. mr. president, we can see the importance of choice in the failings of obamacare which is struggling to sign up young people who might just need a health plan that's affordable instead of one that includes coverage that they will never use or need. maybe a 25-year-old male auto mechanic, for example, just wants catastrophic coverage and

not a plan that includes maternity care. we give people those option toss allow them to find coverage that best meet their needs. our plan does that. we also include significant commonsense consumer protections like making sure that a person cannot have their coverage canceled if they get sick. we help make sure patients with preexisting conditions can gain access to affordable coverage and let children stay on their parents' insurance through age 26, something we were always willing to do. we also get rid of lifetime limits. under our plan, insurers won't be able to put a cap on total benefits to be paid out over a person's lifetime, eliminating a patient's fear of making -- of maxing out their health care coverage. and we give states more options to provide people with more coverage, while once again reducing costs.

under our plan, families earning up to $71,000, who are 300% of the federal poverty level will get a tax credit to purchase insurance of their choosing. we help small businesses get the same advantages as large businesses by allowing them to band together to leverage their purchasing power to buy insurance. this just plain makes sense. mr. president, i have to say one of the most absurd aspects of obamacare is that a good portion of the people it covers is through medicaid, yet as we all know medicaid is a financially unsolved program that's threatening state budgets. it's -- its expansion under obamacare only threatens the program further. our plan includes a key reform that's similar to the medicaid modernization plan that house, energy and commerce committee chairman fred upton and myself put out last year.

currently, federal taxpayers have an open-ended liability to match state medicaid spending, which is a significant driver in medicaid's budgetary challenges. our proposal would create per-capita spending caps similar to what president clinton and many democrats who remain in this chamber supported in the past, to ensure that the dollars follow the patient. this structural reform of medicaid is coupled with new flexibility for states to best manage their medicaid population s. on top of that, we give those on medicaid the option of purchasing private health insurance which is more frequently accepted by quality doctors. mr. president, i want to emphasize that our proposal trusts the american people to make the best choices for themselves. that's why we include an expansion of health savings

accounts, so people can plan and save for their future medical needs. that also means injecting transparency into health care costs so people know which provider charges what and how successful those providers are. we include other cost-containing measures like medical malpractice liability reform to help reduce the costly practice of defensive medicine. mr. president, in my early life, i actually tried medical liability cases, defending doctors, hospitals, nurses, health care practitioners, et cetera. most of those cases were frivolous. they were brought to get the defense costs. and that i -- and doctors were scared so doctors were told fill up your -- your records to show that you -- you went way beyond

the standard of care and the standard of practice, and thus we have hundreds of millions of dollars in unnecessary defensive medicine ever since. we also reduced the distortions in the tax code that actually increase the cost of health care in our country by capping the employee exclusion. this is a key way of restraining costs that has been cited across the economic spectrum. the bottom line is this proposal is achievable. without the tax hikes, mandates, budget-busting spending that have made obamacare so unpopular with the american people, most importantly, unlike obamacare, our plan will reduce health care costs for american individuals, families and businesses. i look forward to working with my colleagues and experts throughout the health care community to better refine and

improve our blueprint, and that's what it is right now, it's a blueprint. i am confident we'll be able to build strong consensus around our ideas and be in a position to formally introduce legislation that will repeal the president's health law and replace it with strong reforms that will actually lower costs, reduce spending and put high-quality care within the reach of every american. frankly, this approach should appeal to everyone, democrats and republicans. i know my colleagues on the other side are very nervous about the failures already of obamacare, and it's just starting. anybody who thinks that the rollout disaster can be -- once we heal that, it's going to be -- everything's going to be okay, let me just say that's only the beginning. obamacare is a disaster, and every day that it continues is

going to be more of a disaster. i think my colleagues on the other side really ought to look at what we're proposing here because it may be one way of helping their colleagues and their constituents understand that they really are serious about trying to get real health care that we can live with and that we can help our country with. mr. president, i suggest the absence of a quorum. the presiding officer: the clerk will call the roll. quorum call:

quorum call: quorum call:

quorum call:

a senator: mr. president? mr. wicker: mr. president? the presiding officer: the senator from mississippi.

mr. wicker: mr. president, i ask unanimous consent that the quorum call be vitiated. the presiding officer: without objection. mr. wicker: and i ask unanimous consent to speak as if in morning business. the presiding officer: without objection. mr. wicker: thank you, mr. president of the i rise this afternoon to talk about the president's sixth state of the union address tomorrow night. although i don't think the framers imagined the pageantry that has come to accompany the state of the union, it certainly is enshrined in the constitution. according to article 2, section 3, the president shall from time to time give the congress information on the state of the union. and recommend to their consideration such measures as he shall judge necessary and expedient. recom recommend for congress's consideration such measures. i note with interest,

mr. president, in today's "wall street journal" on the front page that president obama intends to assert a unilateral agenda at the state of the union, according to press reports at least in "the wall street journal." the article begins, "president obama tuesday night will seek to shift the public's souring view of his leadership," and it goes on to say if paragraph two, "mr. obama will emphasize his intention to use unilateral presidential authority, bypassing congress when necessary, to an extent not seen in his previous state of the union speeches." this certainly doesn't sound like article 2, section 3, where the state of the union is anticipated by our founders as an opportunity for the president to make recommendations to the

congress. but we shall see. mr. president, it should not be difficult for president obama to outline a number of national priorities that are necessary and expedient for the congress to consider. as we enter the sixth year of the obama administration, the economy continues to suffer from anemic growth and chronically high unemployment. family poverty statistics are at record high levels. small businesses, the ones who create our nation's jobs for the most part, are struggling to pay for government mandates and keep americans at work at the same time. of course, a major concern for americans is the president's health care law. legislation that was rammed through congress without

bipartisan support. individuals, families, businesses, and investors can plainly see that the law is plagued with problems. hardly a day goes by without hearing from our citizens back home who are frustrated and worried about how the law impacts them. instead of more affordable and more accessible health care, families in my state and across the country are dealing with the backlash of canceled insurance policies, higher premiums, and fewer choices. no one can really dispute these facts. at this point, americans are rightful to be doubtful of more promises. they want to see results. they want to see real health care. -- health care real estate form. they want 0 to see job strategies that will work, that have been proven to work. americans need more tomorrow

night than phraseology from the president. without leadership and accountability, the public is right to lack confidence that the president's big-government approach can move us afford or that the president wants to work with congress toward bipartisan solutions. i hope we can work together, mr. president, for bipartisan solutions. one recent poll suggests -- and this is stunning -- that a majority of americans actually question the obama administration's competence in running the government. the same survey showed that most americans believe the economy is either staying the same or getting worse, and i believe the american public sees things correctly, mr. president. until americans see significant improvements in their lives, attempts by the twhows spin a positive economic message will ring hollow.

many americans have been forced to take part-time work or have left the labor force altogether. they've left the labor force altogether. in the december jobs report, an official report of the government, we is that you the labor -- we saw that the labor force participation rate, which reflects the number of adult americans who have a job or are looking for one, has fallen to its lowest level since 1978. let hey repeat that, -- let me mr. president. after five years of the obama administration's leadership, the labor force participation rate is the worst it has been since 1978. recent estimates indicate that median household income is almost $2,400 less than twos -- than it was four years ago in

inflation-adjusted dollars. president obama has tried to shift the blame for the harm caused by his health care law. but that attempt to duck responsibility will not wash with the american people. millions of americans have had their health coverage canceled, even though the president repeatedly promised, if you like your health care plan, you can keep your health care plan. and oftentimes he punctuated that with, you can keep your health care plan, period. the president recently said he regrets that americans find themselves in that situation. well, americans find themselves in that situation because of the health care law, which he rammed through congress on a strictly partisan basis. they find themselves in that situation because they were told a very flat and emphatic

statement by the president of the united states, the leader of the free world, and that emphatic direct statement turned out not to be the case. americans are uncertain of how they will afford significantly higher premiums. employers are facing costly mandates, and now we learned at the end of the last week that moody's has downgraded the economic outlook for health insurers, citing the health law's implications. so moody's downgrades the outlook of these health insurers who are trying to make the law work. as the country's chief scirveg the president should -- executive h. chief executive, the country should start a dialogue in his state of the union speech tomorrow night that focuses on ways to empower americans to create jobs and opportunities. this body is created by -- this body is controlled by the

democrats. the other body is controlled by the republicans. we need bipartisan solutions to create jobs and opportunities. we've seen how a big-government approach with more burdensome regulations and more bureaucratic intrusions -- we've seen thousand tha how that apprt wonch the state of the union offers the president an opportunity to outline issues where he's willing to work with americans in a bipartisan way. we should be talking about market-driven strategies to reform health care. we should be talking about the keystone x.l. pipeline and how to advance america's rich energy potential, the most abundant energy sources in the world right here in america. keystone x.l. pipeline would be a jobs win for the obama administration, and yet the

president cannot bring himself to come afford on this bipartisan idea. and, of course, the best well -e best welfare program is a job program. americans are ready to go to work. rather than focus on the politics of income inequality, the president should demonstrate cooperation. in a divided government, both leadership and cooperation are needed to bring about the enduring economic recovery that this country needs. so i look afford to the president'president's address tw night and hope that we can hear bipartisan solutions to move us afford. thank you, mr. president. i see that my friend from georgia is here, and i yield the floor.

mr. chambliss: mr. president? the presiding officer: the senator from georgia. mr. chambliss: mr. president, i rise today to pay tribute to three gentlemen, that as a result of a vote taken by the baseball writers of america a couple weeks ago, are going to be inducted into the baseball hall of fame. these three men are army atlanta brave's manager bobby cox and pitchers tom glavin and greg maddox. these incredible athlete athlete left their imprint not only on georgians but on the entire baseball community around the world. these three gentlemen are among major league baseball's most accomplished coaches and players and will deservedly be inducted into the national baseball hall of fame in july of this year. so far as i know, there have nevada been three in-- there

have never been three inductees to the hall of fame, the individuals who spent most of of their time with the same team inducted into the hall of fame in the same year. truly remarkable. first, let me mention and honor bobby cox, a baseball legend and one of major league baseball's winningest managers, with a record of 2,504 wins, he ranks fourth on baseball's all-time managers' win list. bobby cox started his career with the braves in 1978. he left the braves briefly in 1982 to manage the for ran tow blue gley jay jays only to retun not braves in 19 5eu8 where he would spend the remainder of his career until his retirement following the 2010 season. in 1995, he led the braves to the world series championship where they faced the cleveland

indians. the braves won the series in game six in atlanta, clenching the team's third championship in franchise history. aside from bobby's remarkable 556% winning percentage, he is also remembered for his all-time record for ejections in major league baseball with 158. and for those of us who know bobby well and know that he's one of the nicest people you'll ever meet, and he is a big teddy bear, it is fair to say that if bobby did not agree with a call on the field, he was quick to express his dissatisfaction and his disgust with it, and nobody would protect their players as a manager better than bobby cox. and it was no surprise when he would sometimes find himself watching the game ultimately from the locker room. no one can question bobby's sheer passion and love for the

game of baseball. in both the city of atlanta and the state of georgia are in his debt. i'd also like to being a noblg the impressive -- acknowledge the impressive careers of tom glvment lovi nivment and tom maddox. as braves, maddox and glvment lavin combined for over 400 wins. they will bees first players in 40 years who spent the majority of their careers together to become hall of famers in the same year. the last to do so were new york yankee players micky mantle and whitey afford. the braves drafted tom glavin in 1984. he was such a talented al athlete that the very same year the los angeles kings drafted him in the fourth round to play professional hockey. luckily for the braves and for baseball, he chose baseball. he went on to spend 17 of his 22 decorated seasons in atlanta.

the famous left hander ended his distinguished professional career with 305 wins, 2,607 strikeouts, and two cry youn --o cy young awards which he received both as a brave. in the braves' 195 world series vick trirks he was named the most valuable player. when the leftie pitcher grabbed a bat, we saw something not often seen in today's game: he came out swinging and he could hit. glvment lavin was the recipient of four golden slugger awards. his teammate greg maddox was known as a right-handed control pitcher with precision and accuracy, not often missing his targets. he wouldn't beat you with

100-mile-per-hour fast ball, but he'd embarrass you with placement and movement rarely seen before or since. maddox started his career in 1986 with the chicago cubs. following his seventh season with the cubs and with the cy young award under his belt, the braves signed greg maddox in 1993 in what is widely described as one of baseball's best free agent deals. he went on to win three more cy young awards. he finished his career with a 3.13 e.r.a., 3,371 strikeouts, an impressive four cy young awards and 18 gold gloves in 23 seasons. together these individuals led the braves to 14 straight

division championships, an unparalleled accomplishment in any sport, and i dare say, mr. president, that record will never be broken. it comes as no surprise that the braves have retired the numbers 6, 31 and 47 to celebrate and recognize the distinguished careers of these three men. and now i am pleased to join georgians in congratulating bobby cox, tom glavin and greg maddox on their tremendous accomplishment on being inducted into the national baseball hall of fame. mr. president, i yield the floor. and i suggest the absence of a quorum. the presiding officer: the clerk will call the roll. quorum call:

quorum call: a senator: mr. president? the presiding officer: the senator from louisiana. ms. landrieu: thank you, mr. president. i see my colleague from iowa here, and i understand he has been scheduled to speak in just a few minutes for 20 minutes, but i'd like to ask unanimous consent to dispense with the quorum call and to speak for up to five minutes. the presiding officer: without objection. ms. landrieu: thank you, mr. president. at 5:30 today, the senate is going to take a very important

vote, very important to people in many states, not just the state of louisiana, which i have had the honor and privilege of representing now for almost 18 years, but to states from one end of this country to the other, coastal states, interior states, on an issue that is very important to homeowners and business owners alike. the vote that we're going to take is to call -- to get on to debating a menendez-isakson bill that will fix the many urgent problems that have presented themselves in a recently passed bill called biggert-waters. biggert-waters was a bill that had wonderful intentions, which was to strengthen the flood insurance program and to make it self-sustainable, a program that many, many people depend on. it's a public-private partnership that provides

affordable flood insurance for the middle class, but the bill was built backwards and upside-down. the bill had good intentions but it's had very detrimental consequences. and so this bill that we're going to vote to go to debate on, the menendez-isakson bill, is really a good-faith attempt to correct some of the problems with biggert-waters, and to lead us in a direction to a place where this country can have a public-private partnership for flood insurance that actually works for the taxpayer, for the millions and millions of people, five million-plus that are going to have to have flood insurance, whether they have had it in the past or not. there are new maps that are coming and millions and millions of people will be required by the law to have flood insurance if they have a mortgage on their

home, and most people have mortgages. most people are unable to pay cash for their homes. some people are fortunate enough, but i'd say 95% have mortgages on their homes. so if you have a mortgage, you're going to be required to have flood. if you're required to have flood, you're either going to have biggert-waters unless we can postpone it and get instead menendez-isakson. i wanted to show many of our critics that are not supporting the reform effort that we have under way. say that we're trying to protect mansions on the beach, so i just pulled some just random pictures from the web site that i have set up. my home -- you know, my home, my future. this is in saint amant, louisiana, walker, louisiana, belle chasse, chalmette,

mandeville. these are a variety of communities and neighborhoods. independence, louisiana. new orleans. there is no beach within miles of this home. there is no beach within miles of independence. this is really very fairly far inland. you can see now this is holma, but this house is raised 13 to 17 feet which is required elevation in many parts of louisiana and the gulf coast. but except for this home, which is a -- it looks like a beautiful old mansion, none of these are mansions and none of them are on a beach, because what's happening all over america is that these flood maps are being put into place all over the country, not just on the coast of california or louisiana or mississippi, alabama, florida. but i call your attention

particularly to inland states like pennsylvania. we have gotten a lot of criticism from some of the representatives from pennsylvania about what we're doing, and i wanted to put into the record some very interesting statistics about many of the states that are not coastal states like pennsylvania. we just got some new material that i'm going to submit for the record, and i know i have got just one minute and i'm going to finish up here. but there are all of these dots represent flood maps. the purple of flood maps that are in effect. green of proposed flood maps that will be introduced. and the gold are new flood maps that are possible. the state of pennsylvania is number one in the number of new flood maps that will be proposed by a long shot. there will be 1,425 new maps in

pennsylvania alone, people that have never been in a flood zone, people that are going to soon be in a flood zone, and when they find out that their insurance is $10,000 or $5,000 a year or $20,000 a year, they're not going to be happy, let me assure you. pennsylvania, number one. number two is new york. 625 new maps are going to be executed. in new jersey, 435 new maps. in north carolina, 565. and in michigan, 550. so everyone thinks this is a louisiana issue. i have been trying to say for a year and a half yes, this affects my state. yes, it affects mississippi. yes, it affects georgia and alabama. but the country needs to wake up. this issue will affect everyone, and many places because of the

new maps that are coming out, because of the new science, the new ability to measure elevation s, but there are going to be people that have never flooded and have never been in a flood zone and they're going to be told they are now in a flood zone, we better have a program we can afford. so i'm going to end on this 30 seconds and say i really thank the leadership of senator menendez and senator isakson. they will both speak later this evening as we move to this vote. let's have this debate. let's come up with a new approach that works for the taxpayer, for the homeowners and for the realtors, the bankers and the stakeholder groups that have been so supportive, realtors, home builders, a national association of counties, league of cities, bankers association, community bankers and independent insurance agents are all supporting our effort. i yield the floor and i thank my colleague for his courtesy. the presiding officer: the senator from georgia. mr. isakson: would i be

recognized for one minute, please? the presiding officer: without objection. mr. isakson: i want to thank the senator from iowa for letting me jump in front of him. i want to commend the senator from louisiana and confirm everything she said. the vote tonight on the motion to proceed is important. this is an important debate not just for coastal states, not just for the coastline but for the entire united states because the unintended consequence of biggert-waters as it goes into place is less insurance coverage for less and less americans and more damage in case of another terrible storm like sandy or katrina. so i commend the distinguished senator from louisiana and the coalition she has worked with to bring this issue forward, and i do hope all our colleagues will vote yes on the motion to proceed tonight. i yield back.

mr. grassley: mr. president? the presiding officer: the senator from iowa. mr. grassley: tomorrow night, we have the state of the union address, and news reports say that one of the things that the president will be talking about is income inequality. that brings me to something i should have spoken on a couple weeks ago because january 8, 2014, marked the 50th anniversary of president johnson's call for a war on poverty. this anniversary provides a time to reflect on and re-evaluate its twin aims of poverty relief and economic opportunity. the goal of poverty relief is to ensure that even those who might find themselves in tough times have a sufficient assistance to meet their basic human needs while lifting themselves out of

abject poverty. in other words, we've got to make sure that people have a roof over their heads and food on their table as minimums. the goal of economic opportunity is to ensure the lower rungs on the economic ladder are strong enough to support that climb out of poverty. economic opportunity is another term for the american dream, that through hard work, as you know, you can improve, not just by your own lot in life but that your children and your children's children will be better off. if you judge the war on poverty according to the first aim, a good case can be made that we have been very successful. looking at the official poverty levels that is based on income

prior to many transfer payments. little has changed since 1964. however, consumption based upon studies show that the poor are much better off today than they were decades ago. we have a study available from the national bureau of economic research showing -- it looks at consumption and shows that rather than income, shows over a 26% decline in poverty since 1960. there is little doubt that programs from social security and food stamps, from medicaid to heating assistance have helped increase the standard of living for those at or below the poverty level. however, economic growth and the general decline in the cost of technology has also been a great

source of poverty reduction. while providing relief from poverty is an admirable goal, the american dream has also been about opportunity. as president johnson said in his state of the union address 50 years ago, the goal of the war on poverty -- quote -- "is not only to relieve the symptoms of poverty but to cure it and above all to prevent it." end of quote. it is this goal of the war on poverty that has largely fallen flat. as i referenced earlier, the official poverty level has changed little in the 50-year fight on poverty, despite spending trillions of dollars on antipoverty measures. in 1964, around 19% lived in poverty. today, according to the most

recent census data, that number stands only slightly lower at 15%. we all know that america is a land of opportunity. in america, we have no caste system. laws and social norms do not relegate any individual or any group of individuals to lower social status. it can be tough, but individuals can and do climb their way to the stop. sometimes this process can take generations, but it has always been a source of pride that the next generation is better off and has more opportunities than that generation that came just before. indeed, there is considerable upward mobility in our economy. a 2007 treasure study on income mobility found that between 1996 and the year 2005, around half of those taxpayers who found themselves in the bottom

quintile in 1966 moved to a higher income group in 2005. and how about the very top of the income distribution that my colleagues are fixated on? contrary to what some may claim, those at the top are not the same year after year. the treasury study found of those taxpayers who were in the top .01% in 1996, only 25% remained in that group in 2005. while there is upward mobility in america, there is always room for improvement, and there certainly are those who feel trapped in a cycle of poverty. unfortunately, too often programs meant to help the less fortunate can act as an anchor, preventing americans from climbing up the ladder of success. i have no doubt that the vast majority of those living at or

below the poverty lines are very hardworking people. our programs do not act as an anchor because of the poor themselves, but too often programs meant to actually help turn out to punish success. too often those seeking to escape generations of poverty feel as if the harder they work, the further behind they get. the landmark welfare reform legislation congress passed in 1996 sought to lift the anchor off the backs of the poor, it sought to increase opportunity by incentivizing individuals to work. the welfare reform law was meant to reward personal responsibility and strong work ethic rather than punish these traits so essential to success. the landmark law established

work requirements, requiring individuals to work when job ready and within two years after coming on assistance. to receive funding, states must require a minimum amount of work and that participation must be in hours by families receiving assistance. this meets one of the temporary assistance for needy families act, called tanf. that was one of its primary goals, then, to end the dependence of needy parents on government benefits by promoting job preparation. in other words, if you're going to move up the economic ladder, you've got to be in the world of work. if you're shunted off to the side of society, out of sight, out of mind, then there's no opportunity to move up. in the years that followed, those who argued dire

consequences would result, particularly for single mothers, these people were proven wrong. following the enactment of welfare reform there was a desip us the decline in welfare caseload and usage. at the same time, the single mother labor force participation rose, and incomes rose. unfortunately, president obama has persistently implemented policies that erode these statutory regulations, thereby discouraging personal responsibility and a strong work ethic. just july 12, 2012, the administration issued what's referred to as guidance to states about this tanf program. this guidance explained how states can now seek waivers of

work requirements for welfare recipients for the first time since the tanf program was created in the 1996 welfare reform law. the 1996 welfare reform helped families to enjoy the dignity of self-sufficiency, it reduced poverty instead of pushing families out of poverty, the president's policies trapped americans in soul-crushing government dependency. while welfare reform made strides, too often those working hard to get a leg up feel as if they're only treading water. on november, 2012, the congressional budget office released a report looking at the effective marginal tax rates of low and moderate-income workers. that is, how much extra tax or reduction in government benefits is imposed on american worker

when he or she earns an additional dollar of income. in other words, people are pretty sophisticated about looking how much they get in the government program, if they go in the world of work, are they going to be penalized for it instead of being compensated for working. instead of drawing help. according to c.b.o. in 2011 the marginal tax rate faced by low- to moderate-income workers was 32%. keep in mind that this is just the average. many workers experience marginal effective rates far exceeding the top statutory rate of 39.6% paid by the highest-income people in america. for an example, an economist with the urban institute calculated the marginal effective tax rate of a single parent with two children under various snare joas.

-- scenarios. just one scenario examined what would happen if a household income rose from $10,000 to $40,000. perhaps a single mother was able to increase her skills and earning potential by taking classes at night at a local community college. if this single mother had been receiving all the benefits she was eligible for, she would face a marginal effective. tax rate of 80% as a reward for trying to make a better life for her and her family. that's a far higher marginal tach rate than most -- tax rate than most on the left even propose for the much-derided top 1%. it is difficult to blame an individual in this situation who becomes disguntled and just gives up, not seeking employment. it is us here in the government

who have tilted the scales against those low-income americans trying to realize the american dream. in order to aleave this disincentive, there must be a better coordination between benefits and how they are phased out. instead of reducing this disincentive to work in recent years we have actually made it worse. the premium tax credit and cost sharing subsidies that were enacted as part of the affordable care act will increase marginal tax rates by an average of 12 percentage points. moreover, according to an analysis by the joint committee on taxation, when the premium tax credit is fully in effect, some workers could experience -- quote -- "infinite marginal tax rates." infinite marginal tax rates. end of quote. some of you may wonder what is

an infinite marginal tax rate. to put it -- to put this into more understandable language, this means some workers could actually face marginal effective rates exceeding 100%. for a worker in this situation, it means that if they decide to put in a few more hours of work or get a second job to earn extra cash, they could actually end up worse off financially. of course, this is an absurd result that tells people don't work hard, don't try to advance your situation because if you do, we're just going to take it all away from from you. harvard economist professor and former chief white house economist greg mchugh recently opined on this result saying -- quote -- "it is hard to believe that the law is so badly written

as to have this feature" -- end of quote. well, professor, believe it or not the president and the majority party did enact this law with this feature, and they did so with the full knowledge of the joint committee on taxation analysis which i had made public. often i hear my colleagues on the other side come to the floor to pound the table about income inequality, something we're going to hear the president talk about tomorrow night in his state of the union, we're told. there are a number of studies that examine income inequality. there is great variation among these studies on how income inequality is measured, and the degree to which it has increased, actually increased over the years. however, all these studies do point to some degree of increasing inequality over the

last several decades. that, we have to admit. this has occurred during both republican and democratic administrations. it has also been occurring across most of the developed countries. it happens not just here in the united states but other places as well. my colleagues on other side of the aisle often cite income inequality to justify whatever democratic policy agenda is up at that particular time. whether it's taxing the rich, raising the minimum wage, or extending unemployment benefits, they cite income inequality to justify their aims. however, these policies either fail to address the root causes of inequality or are nothing more than a temporary band-aid. income inequality is a symptom of a much larger structural problems, not the disease

itself. raising taxes might be successful by generating revenue to fund greater wealth transfer payments, but it does nothing to rectify what caused the inequality in the first place. soak the rich policies do not create greater opportunity for low-income individuals. in fact, because of the negative effects on economic growth and cap formation, they can reduce opportunity not only for the poor but for all americans. our country has historically been a land of opportunity, whether such policies are relate intended or cynical political opportunism, they're not worth trading away our nation's legacy of opportunity. you do not have to take my word for the antigrowth effects of increasing taxes. research by christina romer, president obama ear former

committee economist found a tax increase of 1% of g.d.p. reduces economic growth by as much as 3%. according to this study, tax increases have such a substantial effect on economic growth because of -- quote -- "powerful negative effect of tax increases on investment" -- end of quote. in effect, what those who pursue wealth, destroying redistributionist policies are really saying to quote margaret thatcher, is that they -- quote -- "would rather take the -- they would rather the poor were poor, provided the rich were less rich" -- end of quote of tacher. that rntle -- thatcher. that may reduce economic inequality but at the expense of making us all worse off. our goal must be to create

wealth and to create opportunity for all americans. i reject the notion that in order to improve the lot of one individual, someone else must be made worse off. the leadership of the majority has become fixated on redistributing the existing economic pie. i believe the better policy is increase the size of that pie. when this occurs, no one is made better off at the expense of anyone else. this is best achieved through pro-growth policies aimed at growing the economic pie, not by taking from some and giving to others. similarly, increasing the minimum wage or extending emergency unemployment benefits also fail to address long-term causes of inequality. these proposals are well intended and i myself have supported both under the right

circumstances. but neither strike at the heart of income inequality. while there are many contributing factors, much of the research points to the widening wage gap between the skilled and the unskilled labor. if we are to address some income inequality, the primary focus must be on ensuring individuals have the skills necessary to compete in a 21st century economy. one way to accomplish this is through greater competition in education, through increases school choice. we should also further expand our efforts made in 1996 to incentivize individuals to work and ensure those who want to work can gain the skills that are necessary for a 21st century economy. so there are certain things we can do to help reduce poverty and promote opportunity. however, just throwing more and

more money at existing programs is not the answer. according to a congressional research service report, federal spending on low-income assistance programs as a percent of federal outlays has more than doubled since the 1970's. no amount of money, then, will change the tried and true formula for escaping poverty, namely, graduate high school, wait until marriage to have children, and find a job and keep it for at least a year. while even those that follow this formula can fall on tough times, statistically it is rare that they will find themselves poor for a sustained period of time. we should be sure that our laws and programs encourage rather than discourage these three keys to success. one place to start is to take a look at reducing and eliminating

the marriage penalty that can arise in both our tax laws and benefit programs. the war on poverty will not be won as long as the value of marriage is diminished. you cannot disagree with these facts. children in single-parent households will face more challenges and are more likely to be poor. some economists say that children raised in single-parent homes are four times more likely to be living in poverty. according to census data 2012, just 6.3% of the families headed by married couples are poor. in contrast, 31% of those in single-parent households are poor. today, more children are born out of wedlock, more marriages are dissolving, families are not as strong as they could or should be. and we have a social problem that cannot be cured with more

government spending. the war on poverty must be solved in part by encouraging and nur tiewguring -- nurturing health families. of course, there is no magic cure-all for poverty. in fact, that's the point. the notion that experts in washington can wage a successful war on poverty with spending programs as a weapon was never realistic. we're dealing with real people with real lives trying to realize their dreams. not pieces on a chess board that we can move around as we wish. our goal should be to tear down the barriers to economic opportunity and just simply get out of the way. when we discover that well-intentioned programs designed to help the poor are actually trapping them and trapping them in generational poverty, we need to have the courage to chart a new course.

the american dream is not to be dependent upon others for bare substance but to have the opportunity to get ahead through your own hard work and perseverance. all americans deserve the self-respect that comes from earning your own success in life. millions of immigrants have flocked to our shores because america offers greater economic opportunity than any other nation. we are at risk of losing part of what has made our society unique. we should realize -- we should seize the opportunity of this anniversary of the war on poverty, now 50 years ago, to reevaluate our approach to ending poverty and get back to what has historically worked for generations of americans, and that is simply to promote economic opportunity. i yield the floor. a senator: mr. president? the presiding officer: the senator from mississippi.

a senator: mr. president, my remarks to the senate will deal with the homeowners flood insurance affordability act. mr. cochran: mr. president, i'm pleased the senate is close to considering a bill to protect homeowners and businesses from unintended increases in the cost of flood insurance. in july 2012, as part of a larger legislative package that included the highway bill and the gulf coast restoration act, congress passed the so-called biggert-waters flood insurance reform act with no opportunity for amendments. the biggert-waters act generally succeeded in its aim to strengthen and ensure the

long-term fiscal solvency of the national flood insurance program but we need to take another look at a few of the act's reforms that are causing a great deal of consternation throughout my state and the rest of the country. at the time of its consideration by the senate, we knew biggert-waters might cause modest increases in flood insurance premiums. administrative officials testified repeatedly before our committees that the increases would be manageable for american homeowners. unfortunately, the increases have been anything but manageable, as skyrocketing premiums are driving citizens out of their homes and threat nipping th -- andthreatening fuf

entire communities. these americans are receiving notices that their flood insurance premiums are rising to stratospheric heights, regardless of the fact that their homes may have never flooded or investments in flood-control infrastructure and med gaition against future risk -- mitigation against future risk. a constituent from ocean springs, mississippi, contacted my office to give us her perspective on the legislation and she wrote -- and i quote -- "built in 1986, my house survived all hurricanes, including katrina. i used my retirement savings to buy the house. before closing, flood insurance was grandfathered at $245 per year. after closing, the rate skyrocketed to $18,450."

"you can understand my shock," she said. if you do the math, her new rates are more than 75 times the rate when she purchased her ho home. i hope senators will vote to end this debate tonight and proceed to the homeowners flood insurance affordability act. this is our opportunity to protect homeowners from skyrocketing flood insurance premiums until congress is provided assurances from the administration related to affordability and the engineering practices it is using to make flood insurance rate determinations. a study by the national academies of science produced in march of 2013 has called into question some of the engineering practices the government uses to determine rates. it's important that we make

certain the government's engineering practices and procedures are sound and understand the implications of these rates before we allow them to devalue a property, private property and ruin people's lives. it will be very challenging to rebuild neighborhoods or restore home equity once they're lost, so we must get it right. i ask unanimous consent that the balance of my remarks be printed in the record. the presiding officer: without objection. a senator: mr. president? the presiding officer: the senator from new jersey. mr. menendez: mr. president, i ask unanimous consent to speak for up to 15 minutes. the presiding officer: without objection. mr. menendez: mr. president, i rise in support of the homeowner flood insurance affordability act, which i have sponsored with senator isakson. it is a bipartisan-bicameral piece of legislation to ensure that families will be able to

afford flood insurance so they can stay in their homes. businesses can stay open and property values won't plummet. this broadly bipartisan legislation will stop the most onerous and damaging rate increases while minimizing the impact on the national flood insurance program's solvency. i want to thank all of those who have supported the legislation, all of our cosponsors, as well as the national association of home builders, the national association of realtors, the american bankers association, the independent community bankers of america, the independent insurance agents and brokers of america, the national association of counties, the national league of cities, and the greater new orleans organization incorporated, who have all endorsed our bill. and i specifically want to thank my lead republican cosponsor, senator isakson. i've had the pleasure to work with senator isakson on a number of issues and i've come to respect his honesty and desire to come together and get things

done, regardless of the issue. i also want to thank senator landrieu, who's been focused like a hawk on this issue for years now. she is, without a doubt, the senate's preeminent expert on disaster and flooding issues. the people of louisiana are lucky to have such a champion. i saw that expertise firsthand when senator landrieu came to new jersey after sandy struck and worked with us. and i cannot thank her enough for the insights and valuable insight she gave to us as we were dealing with sandy recovery. mr. president, when sandy struck new jersey, over 2 million households were without power, 346,000 homes were damaged or lay in ruins, and most tragically of all, 37 fellow new jerseyans lost their -- new jerseyans lost their lives. but true to our state's motto, we were jersey tough. people who lost their homes were knocked down but not out.

they got up, dusted themselves up and started the long prases of rebuilding. but just as they were getting started they got hit by another disaster, this time a manmade one that took the form of drastic flood insurance premium hikes that threatened to finish the job that sandy started. and i started receiving letters, first dozens, then hundreds, then thousands of people pleading to me for help. they wrote in desperation that their insurance premium was about to go from about a thousand dollars a year to an incredible $10,000. they told me after exhausting all of their savings on repairing and rebuilding their home, they simply had no more to spare, none left. they were being hit by what i've come to call a triple-whammy. first they got hit by the worst natural disaster in our state's history. then they were faced with drastically elevated premiums mandated by biggert-waters. and finally they have to contend with fatally flawed mapping

processes that further exacerbated the drastic rate increases. now, while sandy made new jersey especially vulnerable to the rate hikes required under biggert-waters, make no mistake about it, this is not a new jersey or new york issue. it's not even a coastal issue. the reason this bill has such broad support across both the ideological, geographical spectrum, the political spectrum is because flood insurance isn't just a coastal or a northeast issue, it's an issue that affects the entire country. the fact that -- remains that 55% of americans live within 50 miles of the coast and national flood insurance insures more than 5.5 million properties across all 50 states. and every state in the nation -- every state in the nation -- will see premiums on some of those properties increase as a result of biggert-waters. as this map shows, fema is in

the process of updating maps in every state. the different colors are just simply what's the status of that effort. people who played by the rules and built to code will suddenly find that they are no longer in compliance and will be faced with a difficult decision: spend upwards of $100,000 to elevate your home the three, four, five or more feet from its current level, or see your annual insurance premiums spike from $1,000 to $10,000 to $20,000 over the next five years. not all of these increases will be so drastic but the many that are will act as a de facto eviction notice for homeowners who have lived in their homes and played by the rules their entire lives. if they try to sell their homes, prospective buyers will balk after learning of the high premium cost that comes with it,

leaving the owner no choice but to sell at a firesale. this will drive down property values just as the housing market is still struggling to recover. we all know that declining property values have a domino effect, causing entire neighborhoods to decline in value, which, in turn, hurts the broader economy. and what's most alarming is the fact that fema doesn't even know the size or scope of this problem. they were supposed to complete a study into the affordability of rate increases under biggert-waters by last april but they failed to do it. this was a mandated study that i was able to include in biggert-waters because i knew that this was going to be a problem. the main reason for the delay is they simply don't know what the new rates are going to look like. they don't know how many families will see rates double or triple or many times more so

they can't even guess on how these hikes will affect affordability. so think about that for a second. we're making dramatic changes in policy that could impact more than 5.5 million policyholders -- and that's really families -- and have ripple effects through the housing market in our entire economy before we even know the extent of the changes and their impact. that's simply unacceptable. no one can argue to me that that is sound public policy. in addition to the impact on families, the housing market and the economy, drastic rate increases could actual have the perverse effect of undermining the solvency of the program. it could end up costing taxpayers more in disaster assistance payments by pricing homeowners out of insurance. recent reports suggest that only around 18% of properties in flood zones participate in the

program, and one study has shown that for every 10% increase in premiums, program participation decreases by approximately almost 3%. if rates are raised too high and too quickly, people will simply opt to drop their insurance, decreasing participation and the risk pool the national flood insurance program draws on. the sharpe the increases, the higher the proportion of dropouts. and as with any insurance fund, this is about spreading risk. the smaller the risk pool, the greater the risk and, therefore, the higher the cost. and it perpetuates itself. so by pricing people out of the flood insurance program, increasing rates could have the unintended consequences of actually mawing the program -- making the program less solvent. reduced program participation would also increase the amount that taxpayers are on the hook

for a disaster assistance payment. since fema grants, s.b.a. loans and other disaster assistance are reserved for unmet needs, more uninsured homeowners translight into more disaster -- latranslate into more disaster assistance payments. not only are we blind to these rate hikes, we're also allowing what i believe to be a highly questionable mapping process to justify them. my experience with family ma's map updates has led me to have sear yaws doubts about the accuracy of their results. in december of 2012, fema released advisory-based flood based elevation maps for ten counties in new jersey. these showed a dramatic expansion of what are known as a "v" zone, which are high-risk flood zones that require houses to undergo special retrofitting that is often proh prohibitively

expensivement for the thousands of people that were now in this dreaded "v" zone, the notification they received might as well have been an eviction notice because they were never going to be able to afford the retrofitting, and without it they couldn't afford their premiums. now, to be fair, fema did say that these first round of maps were conservative and subject to change in the next phase of the updates, but they maintain the changes would be minimal and the zones would remain largely intact. so after working with municipals and counties and challenging the accuracy of these maps and pushing fema to exexpedite their review proficiency they finally released a new iteration that showed as much as an 80% decline in the "v" zone area in some of our counties. this was not a small mistake or a rounding error. it was a fatally flawed process

that results in needless anxiety and frustration for those of homeowners only months out from sandy. and while this is bad enough, imagine how much worse the consequences would have been if premium rates were increased to reflect these inaccurate abfe's. families would be forced out of of their homes and homeowners would lose the most valuable asset they have, something they've worked t their whole lie for, all because of inaccurate mat maps. while there is no question that wind to put the flood insurance program on a more solvent trajectory, we first need to understand the sowf scope of these changes and be sure the mapping process used to set these rates are accurate. we need to understand the impact of these dramatic changes in biggert-waters will have on the housing market before it's too late. unfortunately, biggert-waters forces changes that are far too large, far too fast without having all the facts. it requires neem to increase

rates dramatically, even before fema knows the scope of these changes or how they will impact program participation. that's why our bill would impose a moto moratorium on the phase-f subsidies until fema completes the affordable care act study that was mandated in biggert-waters and proposes a regulatory framework to address the issues found in the study. it would also require fema to certify in righting that it has implement add flood-mapping approach that utilized sound engineering methodologies before certain rate reforums are implemented. for any property sales that occur during this period, the homeowner would continue to receive the same treatment as the previous owner of the property unless they trigger some other provision of biggert-waters not covered by this bill. for prospective home buyers, the certainty that they will not see their rate dramatically increase

simply because they purchase a home is critically important to maintaining property values. also this new legislation would give fema more flexibility to complete the affordable care act study. it would reimburse qualifying homeowners for successful appeals of erroneous flood map determinations. it would give communities fair credit for locally funded flood protection systems. it would continue the fair treatment afforded to communities with flood-based systems. just as important what is this bill would do, it's also important to note what this bill will not do. the legislation would not stop the phase-out of taxpayer subsidies for vacation homes and homes that have substantially been damaged. it would not stop the phase-out of taxpayer-funded subsidies for properties that have been repettively flooded including

19% riskiest properties that account for over one of this third of all claims. it would not encourage new construction in environmentally sensitive or flood-prone areas, a understand it would not -- and it would not stop most of the important reforms included in biggert-waters. this legislation simply provides temporary relief to a targeted group of property owners who played by the rules and are now poised to see the most valuable asset in their life become worthless all through no fault of their own. now, this bill doesn't include everything i wanted, and i know there are many other ideas that other cosponsors wanted to include. but in order to reach a true concensus, this bill focuses on ideas that had broad, bipartisan support. that's why we're here today, democrats and republicans, asking for the support of the senate on this vital piece of legislation. we tried to reach a delicate balance with this bill that recognizes the need to improve

solvency and phase out certain subsidies but tries do so without discouraging program participation and, thus, undermining solvency and fiscal responsibility. finally, mr. president, this issue isn't just about insurance rates and tables and actuarial risk rates. it is about our fellow citizens. it is about people, people who played by the rules their whole lives and are now facing a life-altering event they never could have prepared or planned for. if biggert-waters is allowed to be implemented as written, we will see middle-class families forced from their homes and our economy suffer. the home insurance affordability act is a carefully crafted, tightly targeted approach to restore the solvency of the program while fulfilling the original intent of the program to make flood insurance affordable and accessible.

and that's why we hope that our colleagues will vote "yes" on cloture so that we can proceed to provide relief to families before it's too late. with that, mr. president, i yield the floor. the presiding officer: all time has expired. the clerk report the motion to invoke cloture. the clerk: cloture motion: we, the undersigned senators, in accordance with the provisions of rule 22 of the standing rules of the senate, do hereby move to bring to a close debate on the motion to proceed to calendar number 294, is $1926, a bill to delay the implementation of certain provisions of the biggert-waters insurance real estate form act signinged by 17 senators. the presiding officer: by unanimous consent, the mandatory quorum call has been waived. the question is, is it the sense of the senate that debate on the motion to proceed to s. 1926, a bill to delay the implementation of certain provisions of the biggert-waters flood insurance reform act of 2012 and to reform

the national association of registered agents and brokers and for other purposes shall be brought it a close? the yeas and nays are manned tried under the rule. the clerk will call the roll. vote: a

vote:

vote:

the presiding officer: are there any senators wishing to vote or wishing to change their vote? if not, the ayes are 86, the nays are 13.

three-fifths of the senators duly chosen and sworn having voted in the affirmative, the motion is agreed to. the senator from ohio. mr. brown: thank you, mr. president. i ask unanimous consent to speak for up to ten minutes as if in morning business. the presiding officer: without objection. mr. brown: thank you, mr. president. it's been a month, almost a month since senators and house members went home and failed to to -- failed to provide -- the presiding officer: the senate will come to order. the senator from ohio. mr. brown: thank you, mr. president. mr. president, it's been almost a month since senators and members of congress went home and failed to extend

unemployment insurance. that's -- that is a lifeline for 1.6 million americans in the presiding officer's home state of indiana, in my state 52,000 ohioans lost their unemployment benefits at the end of the year. those -- those are people that are -- that were working, that lost their jobs, that are looking for work and had their benefits ended. another 76,000 in my state alone from toledo to chillicothe to cleveland to dayton, another 76,000 will lose those benefits by the end of the year. the expiration of this insurance program -- it's not called unemployment welfare. it's called unemployment insurance. people pay into it when they're working. people get the against when they're laid off, and they only receive these benefits if they are actively seeking work. that's why it's called unemployment insurance. that's why it's a program that's worked for people.

it not only hurts those families, obviously, that aren't receiving the unemployment benefits, it's about $300 a month. it's money -- it's also money that goes into our economy and helps our economy grow. in my -- a new report shows that we have lost -- because we haven't extended these benefits, we've lost $1.76 billion in economic activity just in this one month alone. ohio's lost tens of millions of dollars. what does that mean? that means that people don't have that $300 a week in their pocket to spend at the grocery store, to go to get their car fixed, which they need to look for work. they don't have the money to go to the local hardware store to buy clothes for their kids, but that's money that our economy doesn't have. economic experts have said that extending unemployment benefits will create 200,000 jobs in our country because of that economic activity that's generated.

so it's not just these families. in ohio, 52,000 workers and in many cases their families who are hurting. it's also the communities from toledo to steubenville and all over my state and all over this country. at a time when congress should be helping grow the economy, our inaction slows growth and makes it harder to find work. we know we're still emerging from the worst recession since the great depression. we have made progress but there are still narrowly 11 -- nearly 11 million americans unemployed. about four million of them have been unemployed for at least 27 weeks. when president bush signed the latest round of emergency assistance into effect, the unemployment rate was about 5.5%, more than one point lower than it is today. today the long-term unemployment rate's more than double what it's been at any other time congress has let emergency jobless assistance expire. americans work hard, we want to work, yet there is one job

opening for every three job seekers. so this isn't a question which opponents to unemployment insurance, the same people that don't like unemployment insurance typically don't like the way social security works. that's another social insurance program. typically don't like medicare, another social insurance program. social -- medicare, social security, unemployment insurance, they are social insurance programs. you pay in when you're working and you get benefits when you're not. whether it's medicare, whether it's social security, whether it's unemployment. i want to tell the -- tell my colleagues, mr. president, i want to read them a couple of stories from real people that are affected by this. these aren't just numbers. these are real people that are hurt when congress simply doesn't do its job. senator jack reed of rhode island has been on this floor over and over again. a number of us have pushed for this unemployment insurance extension. we continue to be met by a threatened filibuster. the house of representatives continues to dig in and do

nothing about unemployment insurance because they simply don't believe in the unemployment insurance program. but let me read a couple of notes. emily from lake county writes i'm in my mid 40's, i have my master's degree, i had an excellent career history until i was laid off last spring. i have been searching for work for seven months. i hope to find something soon. i'm encouraged that i have had five interviews in the last two weeks. i know that if i am not hired soon, i will not be able to pay my rent and buy groceries. i would much rather be working. please don't assume the long-term unemployed have given up. we have not. we need support to afford the bare necessities. $300 a week for somebody like emily, i don't know precisely how much she would get based on how many years, that she would need but it's clear we are are turning our backs on people like emily from lake county.

matthew from i could heeg county -- high cuyahoga county, i've not been able to find anything yet. one of my children was recently diagnosed with an incurable yet manageable disease and the medical bills have exhausted our emergency fund. i've worked extremely hard my entire adult life to provide a good life for my family only to see it threatened by the continual bickering in congress. for many of us the recession is not over. please work with other senators to continue the federal unemployment benefits. that's what we're doing. we're going to continue to bring this issue to the floor, continue to work to extend unemployment insurance for people like matthew, for people like emily. terry from medina county writes i'm a 59-year-old single parent, i've been looking for employment since november, 2011, 13 months. i've been able to secure temporary work but not a permanent job. i've worked since i was 17, i've never been out of work. i'm a college educated work with a master's degree in public

administration. if i don't find something soon i may have to file for bankruptcy, my house will go into foreclosure by the spring. my son may have to live with his dad to finish high school. he'll struggle to obtain the necessary finances to attend college. i don't want to stay home, i don't want to collect unemployment, i want to use my brains and my talent and my experience. it's time to stop blaming those unemployed and stop publicly declaring they don't want to work. i could have brought 15 more letters to the floor of people who have had had longer work histories, people who lost their jobs because of economic situations, not because of anything they did wrong. of people who are looking actively for work, people -- of people who simply want to continue contributing to their family and to their community. i urge my colleagues to get out of washington, to do as pope

francis said, exhorted his parish priests, smell like the flock, understand what people are like and what their lives are like and how about people suffer if they can't find work. to help those 52,000 families right now in ohio and over a million the around the country d grow our economy, it will make a difference in the lives of those families and cret jobs in our communities. mr. president, i yield the floor. the presiding officer: the clerk will call the roll. quorum call:

a senator: mr. president? the presiding officer: the senator from illinois. mr. durbin: i ask consent the quorum call be suspended. the presiding officer: without objection. mr. durbin: and i ask consent to speak in morning business. the presiding officer: without objection. mr. durbin: last friday at rockefeller chapel and the campus of the university of chicago, hundreds braved the frigid weather to pay tribute to a fallen american hero. the life story of john rogers

jr. recalls an extraordinary chapter in the history of our nation. 70 years ago, during world war ii, the first african-american military aviators in the history of our armed forces deployed to north africa. these brave men were part of the now legend taxpayer 99th pursued squadron of the united states army air corps. we know them as the very first tusk eegy airmen to be deployed overseas, the first of the first. during the war these airmen were often referred to as red tails after the distinctive color of the aircraft that they flew. many of the bomber crews whose missions the us the keyingy airmen -- us tuskegee airmen had another name. they called them the red tailed angels because they made it possible for so many other pilots to come home after the war to their families. last tuesday, one of those

original red tailed angels went to his final home. i'm proud to say that i knew him and i know his family. his name was judge john rogers. he lived to be 95 years old, and he lived most of his adult life in the city of chicago. these are some photos of him. let me tell you about him. john rogers was born in knoxville, tennessee tennessee in 1918. his father was a minister who owned a 12-chair barber shop. his mother died of tuberculosis when john was 4 years old. the family lived across the street from knoxville college where his parents had both attended. their father instilled in john and his three sisters a reverence for education. in dngs to learning he developed a love of flying. these were years when flying was still a new miracle. as a boy, judge rogers would construct his own model planes

using paper, string and light wood from cheese boxes. when he was 9 or 10 years old he walked mild to the knoxville airport just to be able to say he touched an airplane. when he was 12 years old, this young man suffered another terrible loss, his father died of kidney failure. john and his sisters moved to chicago to live with his brother mother's brother. he attended till deny technical high school in chicago, walking four miles each way to school, eight miles a day. after high school, a degree from chicago teachers college, working as a short order cook. after college he became a teacher in the chicago public schools but while studying to be a teacher was learning to fly in the army civilian training program in chicago where all the intrawct truct worse were black. he received a civilian pilot's license in 1938 at the age of

20. one of only 120 african-american pilots in the country at that time. when world war ii broke out, john rogers tried to enlist in the army as a pilot. the army told him that they just didn't have anyplace for colored pilots. and didn't have any plans to have any colored pilots. but they had an opening for a truck driver. john rogers said no thanks. he said he figured if he was going to be in combat it was safer to be in the air than on the ground so he volunteered in 1941 for a new army air corps training program that had just been established for african-american pilots in tuskegee, alabama. he became part of the 99th pursuit squadron, the first all-black air unit under the leadership of general benjamin o. davis. in april, 1943, john rogers was one of the first 28

african-american pilots to go overseas. the 99th was based in north africa and flew bombing 34eugss over sicily and italy. pilots onced is seth a record for destroying five enemy aircraft in under four minutes. even among such an elite group of pilots john rogers stood out for keen eyesight, steady nerves. mark hanson is the curator of the air force base in illinois where the 99th was first activated. he said john rogers was respected as a pilot who was so good he could -- quote -- "put a 500 pointed bomb true threw a building's window." a photo taken by an arm eassments officer and friend shows john rogers standing next to his 3-40 war hawk. the inscription it reads, the best dive bomber pilot in the business. another photo of john rogers and members of the 99th hangs at

the smithsonian air and space museum in washington, d.c. the skill of the men of the 99th was well known among pilots especially by the british who often asked for the airmen's close air support. mr. president, what i'm about to say here i read as i said at that church service, i said it must be a misprint and i read it again and it's true. all told, john rogers flew 120 often dangerous combat missions for his nation over europe. most of it over nazi-occupied territory and he rose to the rank of army captain. 120 missions. after the war, he returned to chicago. he decided at that time he wanted to go to law school so he said i'm going to the best. he applied over the phone at the university of chicago law school. he was told that he lacked -- quote -- "the necessary qualifications" -- close quote.

undeterred, john rogers showed up the next day at the law school wearing his army officer's uniform. he said that someone who served his country in war deserved a chance to at least take a test to prove that he did have the qualifications to go to law school. so they gave him a test. and he passed it. and he attended law school under the g.i. bill. he went to school year round, summers too and graduated ahead of his class in 1948. he also over time earned a ph.d. from ohio state university. on his first day in law school john rogers met his future wife, jill stratford who would become the first african-american woman to graduate from the university of chicago law school. she later served in the administration of two presidents. john and jill rogers had one john, john jr. and although they divorced after 15 years of marriage, they remained close frentsdz until her death many years later and they both were actively engaged in raising an extraordinary son who is my friend today.

judge rogers practiced law in chicago for almost 30 years. he gained an reputation an outstanding attorney, committed to justice and his clients and mentoring and supporting younger talented african-american lawyers. in 1968 on a blind date he met a fellow university of chicago graduate who was active with the naacp education fund. john rogers and gwen debose dated for 33 years before marrying in 2001. they were devoted to one another. in may, 1977 john rogers was appointed an associate judge in cook county. several months later assigned to the juvenile division. some judges don't like the juvenile court and look for a transfer. the cases can be heartbreaking and the proceedings occur out of the public view so juvenile court judges don't receive publicity that some of their colleagues receive. john rogers loved juvenile court. he spent 21 years as a judge there and eventually became the

supervising judge. to the often complicated cases involving minors, judge rogers strove to bring wisdom, compassion, and justice. agaigwenn rogers has a stack of letters from youngsters they wrote thanking him for giving them a second chance. there was one letter he kept close. it was from a man who appeared before judge rogers three different occasions. on his third court appearance, judge rogers said, i could send you to juvenile detention and you would deserve it but i still see a glimmer of hope in ya. instead, i'm going to send you to boys town. he made it clear to the young man this was his last chance. years later, that boy, now a young man, wrote to him and said that he finished at boys town, went to to graduate from college, became a minister and founded a church in your home state of indiana. judge rogers was the sort of man who really became a father to many young men who needed

someone to look up to. the young man he really poured his hopes and dreams into was his own son, john rogers jr. when john jr. was 12 years old, his parents invested in some stock for him. every birthday and christmas after that, instead of toys, john jr. received stock certificates. at the age of 16, he got his first summer job. that was a family rule. judge rogers saved every dime he could in order to send his son to the best school. eventually john rogers jr. graduated from princeton university. he would go on to found aerial capital management, now called aerial investments, the first african-american owned asset management company in america. mr. president, in 2007, the tuskegee airmen were honored right here in the united states capitol with the congressional gold medal, the highest civilian honor our nation can bestow. the tuskegee airmen are the

largest group ever to receive the medal. about 300 of the airmen crowded into the capitol rotunda on that cold march day to receive their medals. what an incredible sight. many wore red jackets, a symbol of their red-tailed angels reputation. afterwards, i was honored to host a reception in my capitol office for the 11 fusk gee tuske airmen from my home state of illinois. one of them was john rogers. also joining us for that little reception was my colleague at the time, senator barack obama. what a great moment that was to see the arc of history and justice. five years later, president barack obama invited judge rogers and 14 other surviving tuskegee airmen to the white house for a special screening of "red tails," the george lucas film about the historic fliers. talk about the arc of history -- the first african-american president inviting the first african-american aviators to the white house. judge rogers, this man whose courage helped to break the

color barrier in america's military, first knew barack obama as a promising young community organizing who was dating michelle robinson. the rogers and robinson families go back a long, long way. when john rogers jr. was captain of princeton's basketball team, he recruited craig robinson, michelle's brother, to play for princeton. craig robinson would later help persuade his younger sister to attend princeton. there they were, all those years later. judge rogers, president and mrs. obama together in the white house watching a hollywood film about the tuskegee airmen. judge rogers' granddaughter victoria said that his grandfather actually watched the film three different times. every time he moved his hands like he was flying. she said -- quote -- "he said he could remember the tension." awhile back, judge rogers told a reporter, "i hope there are planes in heaven so i can fly because you know how much i love to fly." well, judge, i hope there are planes there, too, for your sake and i hope you're sitting in

first class or in the cock rat, wher --cockpit, where you belon. in closing, loretta and i, our family, want to extend our sincere condolences to judge rogers, his beloved wife, his son john jr., his granddaughter victoria, the rest of family and many friends and all of those whose lives he touched and enriched. that gathering in that rockefeller chapel was such an outstanding turnout of people in chicago who wanted to pay tribute to the great man, john rogerrogers sr. he willr. he will be dearly missed. mr. president, i yield the floor.

mr. durbin: i ask unanimous consent the senate proceed to a period of morning business with senators permitted to speak for up to 10 minutes each. the presiding officer: without objection. mr. durbin: mr. president, i ask unanimous consent the senate proceed to the immediate consideration of calendar number 295, s. 1901. the presiding officer: the clerk will report. the clerk: calendar number 295, s. 1901, a bill to authorize the froze extend the term of the nuclear energy agreement with the republic of korea until march 19, 2016. the presiding officer: is there objection to proceeding to the measure? without objection, the senate will proceed. mr. durbin: i further ask the

bill be read a third time and passed, the motion to reconsider be considered made and laid upon the table with no intervening action or debate. the presiding officer: without objection. mr. durbin: mr. president, i ask unanimous consent the senate proceed to the consideration of h. con. res. 75, which was received from the house and is at the desk. the presiding officer: the clerk will report. the clerk: h. con. res. 75, providing for a joint session of congress to receive a message from the president. the presiding officer: is there objection to proceeding to the measure? without objection, the senate will proceed. mr. durbin: i ask unanimous consent the concurrent resolution be agreed to, the pream about he wilpreamble be ae motion to reconsider be laid on the table. the presiding officer: without objection. mr. durbin: mr. president, i ask unanimous consent the senate proceed to the immediate consideration of senate resolution 337, submitted earlier today. the presiding officer: the clerk will report. the clerk: s. res. 337, expressing support for the designation of january 28, 2014, as national data privacy day. the presiding officer: is there objection to proceeding to the

measure? without objection, the senate will proceed. mr. durbin: i further ask the resolution be agreed to, the preamble be agreed to, the motions to reconsider be considered made and laid upon the table with no intervening action or debate of the. the presiding officer: without objection. mr. durbin: i ask unanimous consent the senate proceed to the consideration of senate resolution 338, snit submitted earlier on today. the presiding officer: the clerk will report. the clerk: senate res. 338, designating diane sklavra as curator emeritus of the united states senate. the presiding officer: is there objection to proceeding to the measure? without objection, the senate will proceed. mr. durbin: i ask unanimous consent the resolution be agreed to, the preamble be agreed to, the motion to reconsider be laid upon the table with no intervening action or debateme debatement. the presiding officer: without objection. mr. durbin: mr. president, i understand that senate bill 1963, introduced earlier today by senator pryor, is at the desk. i ask for its first reading. the presiding officer: the clerk will read the title of the bill for the first time.

the clerk: s. 1963, a bill to repeal section 403 of the bipartisan budget act of 2013. mr. durbin: i now ask for its second reading and i object to my own. the presiding officer: objection is heard. the bill will be read for a second time on the next legislative day. mr. durbin: mr. president, i ask unanimous consent that when the senate completes its business today, it adjourn until 10:00 a.m. on tuesday, january 28, 2014. that following the prayer and pledge, the morning hour be deemed expired, the journal of proceedings be approved to date and the time for the leaders be regrefbd fo -- reserved for ther use later in the day. following any leader remarks, the senate resume consideration to proceed to s. 1926, the flood insurance bill proas cloture, that the -- postcloture, that the senate recess from 12:30 to 2:15 p.m. finally i ask the time during adjournment and recess count postcloture. the presiding officer: without

objection. mr. durbin: mr. president, the president of the united states will deliver the state of the union address at 9:00 p.m. tomorrow. all senators are invited. senate will begin gathering in the senate chamber at 8:20 and depart as 8:30 to proceed as a body to the hall of the house. if there's no further business to come before the senate, i ask that it adjourn under the previous order. the presiding officer: the senate stands adjourned until 10:00 a.m. tomorrow.icer: withot objection, so ordered. mr. nelson: mr. president, i want to speak about the flood insurance bill, and i am speaking with a smile on my face

because i believe we have the 60 votes to break the filibuster so we can get to the bill. and i would hope that if we exceed that 60-vote threshold that indeed those that have been trying to torpedo this bill would then, instead of stringing us out all week making us go through all the parliamentary procedure, if we have the votes, let's get it passed. the problem is going to be down at the other end of that hallway, because the speaker of the house has already said that he doesn't like it, but what he's going to find out that he doesn't like is a lot of the members of the house of representatives whose constituents are facing tenfold increases in their flood insurance because of something that was tacked on to a

transportation bill that was a year ago. and thus, biggert-waters, the sponsors in the house of this particular law that now is causing these unforeseen and never expected huge increases, we can rectify that today. and at 5:30 we're going to have the vote on the motion for cloture to cut off debate so that we can get to the bill. now what does this bill do? it's real easy. it delays these giant rate hikes for four years and it mandates on fema an affordability study

so that we can see -- i mean, you can say you want rates to go up and be actuarially sound, but if what happens is what's been happening, that people can't afford it because it's ten times as much or that because it is so high, it completely drives up the real estate market, well, that's not helping anybody. that's hurting a lot of people. and it's hurting our economic recovery just at the moment in which the real estate market is coming back all along the coast of america as well as along the rivers and lakes, the very places that flood insurance is necessary for a homeowner or a business. now, i might say that,

mr. president, today, as i was in florida, the temperature was in the 60's moving to the 70's. i got off the plane here. it's in the 30's. it's in the 30's. but the chill winds, the flood insurance rate, gargantuan rate hikes. those chilling winds are not only killing real estate sales, it is killing commerce, and it is putting an impossible financial burden on our people. no, we can take care of this a 530. and then those who have opposed us the whole way as we have tried a handful of times to bring up this legislation, asking unanimous consent, well, finally thanks to the leader he

has forced the issue, and we are going to vote on the cutting off of debate today. i have several document cases along florida's gulf coast where the premiums for flood insurance have gone up ten times. one particular case in pinellas county chronicle by the tampa bay times, the premium was $4,500. is gone to 45,000. no homeowner can endure and afford that kind of increase. in another case, a $1,400 flood insurance premium has gone to 14,000. is the same thing. we should be a round you're promoting homeownership, but if

the poor homeowner has a mortgage because they have got a loan from the bank, what is the bank going to do to require some security for their loan. they're going to require flood insurance. and so how can we expect a homeowner to have to go through this? now, you can say this is a subsidized program. it is. but the big losses in the program has been because of very unusual climactic events. end in the first place it was working katrina. that was an ordinary common garden variety category three hurricane. those of us in florida understand hurricanes, but what happened on this hurricane, it went to the east of new orleans.

the counterclockwise winds were not coming directly from the gulf to be there were coming in over new orleans over link punched -- lake pontchartrain. costa lake to rise. filled up the canals. the water rose in the canals. the water pressure against the sides of the canals increase. there were faulty canal ducks. breach in a couple of places. then all the water flooded the parts of new orleans and filled up the bowl of new orleans. that was a huge loss to the federal flood insurance program. then there was another. this was just a year ago. an extraordinary events. about a category one storm,

extraordinary because it hit in the winter. where did it? it hit a highly urbanized coast of new jersey, new york, and parts of new england. and as a result, huge losses there. and people that were desperate to have assistance. and now look what those folks are facing with regard to the flood insurance checks. we can take care of all of this. we can take care of it at 530 this afternoon as we start the process of getting on the bill. and so i would urge all of our senators. sooner or later somebody in your state is going to have a flood, and they're going to get a rematch. it may not be paying those rights now, but they're going to

get a rematch because of those funds. and then they're going to get hit with the use of affordable, gargantuan rate hikes on the premiums of federal flood insurance. this is the right thing to do, mr. president. >> the senate floor today. utah's senator orrin hatch and knows what he is calling the republican alternative to obamacare. his proposal will get people making less than $35,000 per year a refundable tax credit to buy private health insurance. >> i rise today to speak on the alleged letter proposal. i was there is there with two of my colleagues, senators richard burr and tom coburn, dr. cobourg . mr. -- this represents our vision to an alternative to obamacare. let me start by saying something that most americans from utah to

north carolina to oklahoma note to be true. obamacare just is not working. as you know president obama will not be able to convince the american people that his health care law is anything other than an unmitigated disaster. this horribly misguided law puts government between people and the doctors. it includes over $1 trillion in new taxes and new, unsustainable -- and a new, unstable entitlement. includes mandates and regulations that have forced to many americans of their health plans and businesses to cut back on hiring. it has done next to nothing to put a brake on skyrocketing health care costs that are hitting every family in this country. no, we knew there is another way, a better way, a way that does not leave 2700 pages of

government programs and mandates to common-sense reforms of the american people. and let me say, mr. president, that these two senators that enjoyed with on this proposal had been looking at this for some time, as have my. i commend them for their leaders. four simple principles. first, repeal obamacare with all its costly mandates, taxes, and regulations in its entirety. second, taking the government out of the equation. instead, empower consumers to make choices about their own health care. third, provide common sense consumer protections to protect individuals with pre-existing conditions. reform are broken medicaid system by giving states more flexibility to provide the best coverage for their citizens.

we are confident that our plan will accomplish all of this, mr. president. and we do so without adding one red cent are $17 trillion debt. these four principles are in the core of what we unveil today. they are smart, then makes sense, and they are what the people of my state have been looking for. i think the people of every state. we start with the biggest failure to health care in this country, and that happens to be skyrocketing health costs. to many families can now afford to buy insurance or to see a doctor. why? because of costs. we recognize this. a plan to give people a for abortions. but really make art -- meet our needs by harnessing the power of the marketplace. the more options than the private insurance marketplace, particularly in small groups and individual markets, on top of

greater consumer protections and more transparency, the american people would be better able to purchase coverage that is rare for them. mr. president, we concede the importance of choice which is struggling to such an appeal to people who might just need a health plan that is affordable instead of one that includes covers that there will never use and need. maybe it's 25 year-old male of a mechanic just once catastrophic coverage. not a plan that includes maternity care. give people those options to allow them to find coverage that best meets their needs. our plan does that. we also include significant comments like making sure the person cannot have their coverage canceled if they get sick. help make sure patients with pre-existing conditions can gain access to affordable coverage.

something we were always willing to do. we also your read of retirements. under our plan insurers will be able to put a cap on total benefits to be paid out. eliminating a patients fear of making or of vexing out their health care rich. and we give states more options to bribe people with more coverage. under our plan families earning up to $71,000 or three under percent of the federal poverty level would get tax credit to focus. we hope they enjoy the same and manages piling them to band together to leverage their purchasing power to buy insurance. this just plain makes sense. one of the most of certain aspects of obamacare with a good

portion of the people it covers is through medicaid. and unsound program that is threatening state budgets. with expansion under obamacare only turning the program further . our plan includes a key reform that is similar to the medicate modernization plan, the committee chairman and myself for that last year. an open-ended liability to match state medicaid spending which is a significant driver and medicaid's budgetary challenges. our proposal would create per-capita spending caps. a similar to what president clinton and many democrats remain in this chamber supported in the past. this structural reform of medicaid is tempered with the flexibility for states to best

manage their medicaid populations. on top of that meeting give those on medicaid the option of purchasing private health insurance, which is more frequently accepted by quality doctors. mr. president, want to emphasize that our proposal trust the american people to make the best choices for themselves. that is why we incurred an expansion of health savings accounts. some people complained and save for their future medical needs. also means injecting transparency into health care cost. people know which provided charges what and how successful those providers are. we include other cost-containment measures like medical malpractice liability reform to help reduce the cost of practice. mr. president, i actually tried

medical liability cases, defendants doctors to law schools, health care practitioners. most of those cases were frivolous. doctors were told. your records to show that you went beyond the standard of care and the standard practice and have hundreds of millions of dollars in unnecessary defensive medicine. we also farm distortions that increase of -- cost of health care in our country by capping the employee exclusion. this is a key way of restraining costs that has been cited across the economic spectrum. this proposal is sustainable and

that she will. and without the tax hikes, mandates, budget busting spending that has made obamacare so unpopular with the american people, most importantly of like obamacare our plan will reduce health care costs for american individuals, families, and businesses. toby working with my colleagues throughout the community to better refine and improve our board cut, and that's what is right now, a blueprint. i am confident we will be able to build strong consensus around our ideals. repeal the president's health law and replace it with strong reforms are actually lower cost to reduce spending, and put high-quality care within the reach of every american. frankly, this approach should appeal to everyone, democrats

and republicans. i know my colleagues and the other side of very nervous about the failures already of obamacare. it is a starting. anybody who thinks that the rollout disaster, once we hear that it will be, everything will we'll carry. let me just say, that is only the beginning. obamacare is a disaster. it will be more of a disaster the other side really has to look at what we're proposing here because it may be one way of helping your colleagues and their constituents to understand if there really are serious about trying to get real health care that we can live with and that we can help our country with. ..

chiquis barron insured americans with pre-existing conditions locked out of the market, to raise costs and to take away medicaid from the millions of of americans who stand to gain coverage thanks to the expansion that is the part of the affordable care act. it also raises questions about what the impact could be on employer-sponsored coverage which could attend chile cause millions to lose employer plans they have. we have to see further details

and yet we know we have seen it time and again republican energy on this issue has been focused on repeal, focused on again and again a pursuit that would result in depriving millions of americans of what our core benefits. it would result in restoring in the healthcarhealthcar e and health health insurance equation in america the primacy of insurance companies over individuals. giving back to insurance companies the power to deny an american coverage because he or she has a pre-existing condition and to charge women twice what they charge men because they are women. we strongly believe that is the wrong course of action and as i have said over the weekend embracing repeal as a

legislative or political strategy will not be successful in my view for republicans. >> real moment that it started was with two gentlemen. one was jack dorsey and the other was glass and they were two very close friends and they worked at a company called audio which was a podcasting company in early 2005/2006 in san francisco. the podcasting company was failing and they had been out drinking one night. jack had this idea that they could build something that would allow you to say what you were doing at a moment in time in a picky kind of way like i'm drinking or i'm eating or i'm at the park and noah gloss is the co-founder. he had the idea that you could be able to share with your friends and be able to connect with your friends and he was going through a difficult time at the time, noah was and he felt this thing called twitter that they created would make him

feel less alone. that was the genesis of the idea but everyone had a different concept of what it was once it started to grow. >> ellen hillary began their careers at the university of arkansas. hillary came a year later. hillary clinton's career began right inside this building, the leffler law school at the university of arkansas where she was a professor. she taught classes such as criminal law, criminal procedure, trial procedure in the prison project. hillary was wellesley educated, ivy league law school grad that had worked at tc is part of the campaign. at this time nixon had been impeached about two weeks before hillary taught her first class.

see as we stabilize the financial system, we also took steps to get our economy growing again to save as many jobs as possible and help americans to become employed. that is why we extended our increased unemployment benefits for more than 18 million americans. made health insurance 65% cheaper for families who could get their coverage through cobra and past 25 different tax cuts. now let me repeat. we cut taxes. we cut taxes for 95% of working families. we cut taxes for small businesses. [applause] we cut taxes for first-timfirst-tim e homebuyers. we cut taxes for parents trying to care for their children. we cut taxes for 8 million americans paying for college. >> watch president obama deliver this year's address.

our preview program starts life tuesday night at 8:00 eastern with the president at 9:00 followed by response from republican conference chair cathy mcmorris-rodgers and your reaction by phone, facebook and twitter. the state of the union tuesday night live on c-span, c-span radio in c-span.org. >> the federal communications commission's newest member michael o'rielly said today that the fcc does not have the authority to regulate the internet. he spoke at the hudson institute in ching 10 with the former fcc commissioner. [inaudible conversations] >> hello. my name is harold furchtgott-roth and i would like to welcome you to the session

here at the hudson institute. we are extremely honored today to have with this commissioner michael o'rielly of the federal communications commission. before we start with commissioner o'rielly just a couple of housekeeping matters. first of all at the end of february, jeff lee of the hudson institute and i will be presenting a session on preliminary research findings on measuring the contribution of the internet to various economic contribution industries using techniques that we have. so will be announcing the date of that soon. second, for our on line audience from c-span, welcome to the hudson institute. if you have questions for our speaker today, please send them via twitter to add hudson institute and we will be incorporating those questions

with other questions from our audience. it is my great pleasure and honor to introduce commissioner michael o'rielly today. you can find his formal biography at the federal communications commission web site. i will give you the informal biography which is that commissioner o'rielly and i were staff members together at the house commerce committee nearly 20 years ago, longer than either of those probably choose to remember and we both had the great privilege of working on the telecommunications act of 1996 for chairman tom bliley. i have known commissioner o'rielly for many years and there are two salient characteristics about commissioner o'rielly.

one is integrity. he is an extremely honest fellow and he is known for that. and the other is extremely good judgment and discretion. those characteristics have served him well over the past 18 years as a staff member on capitol hill which capitol hill is an extraordinary long career. his losses in the house and the senate have valued both his integrity and his judgment over the years, and i think those are extraordinarily good characteristics to have as the new commissioner of the federal communications commission. i also want to congratulate commissioner o'rielly on his recently announced engagement

and with that let me turn the floor over to commissioner o'rielly. please welcome commissioner o'rielly. [applause] >> let me begin by thanking my good friend and former colleague harold furchtgott-roth for arranging this event. many years ago what is now called is now called the house energy and commerce committee harold and i worked together to craft a bipartisan communications act of 1996. he went on to serve with distinction as the commission of the federal communications commission and over the years he has been a thoughtful advisor to me on many issues. i also want to thank the hudson institute and its exceptional scholars and work including my friend and predecessor former fcc commissioner rob mcdowelmcdowel l. as has been previously mentioned i'm the newest fcc commissioner. i was fortunate enough to be confirmed alongside her new chairman tom wheeler. in our short 10 years we both

have come to be known for certain taglines and have mounted further questioning. is this then is it competition and mine has been freedom. the chairman has on a number of occasions articulated what he means by his term. today i would like to explain more about what i mean by mine. i bring to this position a core belief that the most enduring value of america is freedom. our nation began with a desire to be free from the paternalistic monarchy. to reserve these freedoms our forefathers embedded in the constitution certain protections to ensure that if the government does not abuse its power or restrict individual liberty, these principles of a free society such as freedom of speech, religion and assembly and so forth are also inherent in the concepts of free markets. from which we form the basis of our economy. in our system of free enterprise behold the belief that consumers and businesses should be able to

freely buy and sell without needing the permission of the government with minimal restrictions placed on business activity or asset ownership. to illustrate why this economic freedom is so important let me relate a story from my youth. one hot summer day near buffalo, new york ,-com,-com ma it actually does happen my younger brother and a friend and i decided to sell lemonade to consumers. to be clear this wasn't your cute adorable kids sitting on the front lawn selling juice. instead it was a rash effort to make real money. the three of us did what every good business does, obtain necessary beverage supplies designed and built a mobile stand and did market research. we have been reimbursed our capital provider, my dad. at our major rollout we hit the town's annual tennis tournament because who doesn't like the cold drink while watching a match after completing a tough three setter? initial success prompted us to

expand much do with their many millions. withal sweet stories comes a point. it just so happens the vast number of tennis courts were in part owned by the city. our prime location with a local high school also owned by the city. it wasn't long before we hit a nerve. by the second weekend of the tournament our business was effectively snuffed out when a local official informed us that we couldn't occupy the location next to the tennis courts and the planetarium. the world was to pride of our refreshment product. admittedly we were kids and i was able to focus on paper route that this provides an example of lost opportunity that occurs when the government for six entrepreneurs. there's a loss to the would-be seller, the wood we fire in society as a whole. as a staff on capitol hill i start the same thing play out time and time again in a setting with far more serious consequences. the most absurd example was back in 1996 when the fda tried to tell some a cloud of single

mother in atlanta georgia that she could market at home drug t. these were the exact same kits available to employers. the fda's rationale for such a prohibition? the belief that parents do not react properly if the children tested positive for drugs. intel public and congressional outreach ended this rule the federal agency was allowed to target small business that was trying to empower parents. who knows how many young people had and saved from a life of drug addiction due to the early detection through the use of these home tests which are still available. more often however such constraints are more subtle and difficult to spot. take for instance the failed merger of the top two video rental giant lock buster in hollywood video back in 2005. after the federal trade commission signaled a likely rejection the companies abandon the deal. about that time regulators were concerned about the anti-competitive effects of one company having a significant percentage of the home video

market. they failed to account for the rise of videos delivered through vending machines, the male and internet streaming such as netflix. both block buster and hollywood video declared bankruptcy in 2010. who knows how much longer a combined entity could have lasted or if their combined assets would have allowed them to innovate in better adapted to changing market. policymakers in washington d.c. should he constantly on guard of this unnecessary restrictions that interfere with the freedom to a willing buyer or seller in our economy because just like the examples i provided we have no idea what type of products or services our regulations may discourage from coming to market. championing economic freedom is my guiding principle and it overcomes to seeing the communications industry. tune for my decisions i will consider the following. first, the commission must consider whether to authority to regulate as well as realizing the confines of their authority.

there is no place in the rules for policies even ones that are well-meaning but have no basis in the statute. the commission exists to implement the statute. no less than certainly no more. second, the commission must have verifiable and specific evidence that there is market failure before acting. in many cases competition and industry self-regulation are sufficient to ensure that services are provided and consumers are protected and it should only regulate when there's evidence and on-the-fly data that evidence exists resulting in real harm to the consumers that the commission can solve. third when the commission does intervene if the solution should be carefully tailored to a set of providers or services. we must guard against overregulating. fourth, the benefit regulation must outweigh the burdens. even when rules are grounded in the statute a some evidence, addressing real harm and targeted at a specific album

they're still a cost to implement to intervening and we must consider those costs as part of our analyses. let's accept the reality that costs are always passed on to consumers in one way or another area in we often hear it said the commission's rules have not kept place with the marketplace and that is true. the communications sectors in the midst of the digital russell -- revolution. we are investing billions each year in new networks and new technologies and consumers are benefiting from a vast array of services and products. with some advocate for applying antiquated rules to new cutting-edge technologies i do not leave rules or construct are entitled to live on after their usefulness. when it comes to encouraging competition and consumer choice i start from the premise that removing regulations where they are not needed will better serve the schools.

to ensure that participants in the communication marketplace are as free as possible to meet consumer demand i believe the commission must carry out a way re-examined its rules and the justifications that underlie those rules. over time those justifications may have eroded or changed. that is why it will consistently advocate for sunset provisions to force the commission to make sure our rules are still relevant. you may be wondering how does this thinking applied to specific communications issues? let me share my thoughts about a few matters before the commission. i will begin with a topic that is not only of immediate importance but also a long-standing interest of mine. ip transitions. our nations quickly moving from telephone service to voice-over internet protocol. we are also relying more and war on wireless toys, texting and broadband. as we leave the traditional telephone network behind there are some unanswered questions about the potential vocations of an all-ip world.

the commission is poised to embark on ip trials to help answer some of these questions. when it comes to ip transitions i believe the commission must ensure that its policies and regulations do not impede this so the providers are free to implement the latest technologies and services. when it comes to to governing by petro specifically i suggest the following criteria. first, any trial should not interfere with the choice the consumers are making every day to go with ip services. let me give you an idea that magnitude of these choices. by the end of 2008 when the commission began certain tracking of residential voip connections subscribers had topped 19 million or 20% of the residential wireline. just four years later that figure grew to over 34 million, representing over 43%. growth is more notable when you consider the total wireline connections went down by over

24 million during that same period math. in other words, and ip transitions are well underway in the commission should not allow these trials took struck industry in the nation for consumer adoption. second, trial should not delay the commission's work. the trials won't resolve many important legal and policy issues, therefore they should not serve as an excuse for delaying appropriate decisions. separate from the trials i doubt that many of the old rules will be necessary going forward. we should take this opportunity to see how many regulations we can live without such as arcane regulatory jurisdictional separations. finally it should be made clear that the commission establishes that any rules the commission establishes in the trials will be nonbinding on what's happening outside the trials or for future decisions. the straus should be exact a vas for new regulations.

next, the commission must continue updating its universal service programs. universal service is a fundamental long-stanlong-stan ding principle of communication policy. it should be oppression of local manner and recognition of the differences in our fascination. some have access to modern medication services and some as a result of funding and other germane and serve. taking by nate repair funding and targeting effectively to reserve and advance universal service for it i'm encouraged by some of forms already adopted through subsidizing multiple competitors especially areas that a party receives significant on being is declining. high-cost support that was not well targeted for serving the intended purposes is being phased out. and the link a program has been eliminated in most areas. i also support the chairman's commitment to revisit the quantile regression analysis that q. r. a. benchmarks. when rules are not up rating is

intended then those rules should be replaced. as we move forward we should consider a variety of approaches to complete universal service reform consistent with their 2011. for example i'm interested in employing the remote areas fund to bring voice and broadband service to extremely high cost areas through a variety of technology platforms including satellite and fixed wireless. we must fully explore again consistent with our 2011 order all ideas to ensure that consumers and hardest serve parts of the country do not get left behind. we must also remain mindful of the size of the fund. the burden of paying for these programs ultimately falls on ratepayers. while the size of the fund is down from last year there is no overall cap. as we continue to perform various programs we should let her ways to offset the cost of modernization within existing budgets, budgets made for hard choices but those hard choices

or sufficiency and encourage innovation and benefit ratepayers. to put this in perspective the contribution factor is an incredible 16.4% and is likely to face further in the coming years. therefore car division reform is long overdue. however it is being addressed in a manner that is fair for everyone, providers ,-com,-com ma recipients and american consumers and it should not be performed in with the dampens internet usage for increases overall consumer costs. finally we need to take a close look at program management. projected requirements which drive contributions are consistently much higher than disbursements. what makes some sense is a plan for specific future expenses. the result -- reserve should not be more than absolutely necessary at any one time. expenses have been trending upward. one of the last pieces of legislation i worked on as a congressional staffer was

enacted into law with a middle-class tax relief in job creation act of 2012. a church of the commission to hold the broadcast spectrum incentive auction. providing this to broadcasters wireless service providers is a great example of further inject market forces in the spectrum policy. as congress directed the resulting revenue will pay for first responder network authority next generation 911 programs and deficit reduction among others. this'll be the most complicated spectrum auction in our history. technically we need to be able to simultaneously integrate the reverse auction to obtain spectrum to allocate the spectrum for wireless use or repacking remaining broadcasters. in order to be successful we need many things to fall into place including broadcaster participation because without them options simply fail. educating broadcasters about their options whether selling spectrum channel sharing are moving from uhf and vhf will be

an enormous challenge. it will be an even greater uphill climb if he rules and processes are complex or confusing. similarly we must remain attentive to the concerns of those broadcasters interested in being repacked. simplicity and transparency are paramount to providing broadcasters with a certainty needed to decide whether to participate in the auctions were continued to serve their communities. it made it to or broadcaster participation or delaying the auction. i also feel strongly the commission was not from liberals to sign two preordained auction results are placed new restrictions on licenses. such efforts have failed in the past and now more than ever we cannot afford obstruction of pace -- revenues for the commission must allow the highest use and ensure spectrum flexibility. if the options are successful

consumers will benefit enormously as wireless providers use the new spectrum build the next generation of networks and bring better and faster service better nation. last but not least an area that the commission needs to take action. the telecommunications act of 1996 mandates that the commission review its media ownership rules every four years or quadrant only to determine whether -- if they are not we must modify or eliminate rules that are no longer in the public interest. we have failed to comply with this congressional directive very specifically the commission hasn't released its 2010 order and arguably a behind on its 2014 review. when congress extended the media ownership review from a two-year to a four-year requirement the intention was to ensure a thoughtful competitive analysis of the space. instead what has resulted is a regulatory paralysis. i'm aware of the difficulties in completing this task in the responding legal challenges

including third circuit's ruling nonethelenonethele ss we are required to comply with the statute. let's face it, the media landscape has changed dramatically. we no longer live in a world where americans take information solely from local broadcasters and newspapers. we have satellite providers, cable networks, the internet and mobile platforms. i'm hoping to thoughtfully reflect the realities of today's marketplace. today i've shared with you some of my thoughts about what reagan is and how it applies to the work of the commission. in closing i would like to acknowledge the simple fact that there will be differences of opinion over how this principle will be applied. when i use the word freedom i do not mean to lie -- imply that i lead a monopoly or trademark on this value. i've seen the robust exchange of ideas and bipartisan compromises can produce the best policy result.

already i have found my colleagues to be incredibly thoughtful and dedicated public servants. everyone has a different background and perspective that can balance decision-making. the same scopes for the career staff there that the most impressive the depth of knowledge expertise and work ethic that they demonstrate on a daily basis. finally i also believe the input of thinkers is essential. so i want to hear from everyone on the issues currently facing the commission and those issues that will confront us in the future. please know my door is always open. my contact information as well as contact information of my staff is publicly available on the fcc's web site. my twitter handle is mike o. fcc and i stand ready to make public form policy discussions such as this. thank you so very much for your time. it's been such an honor to speak before you today and i look towards answering your questions. [applause]

>> thank you for those very thought of comments commissioner very powerful ideas, principles for regulation and i just want to review with you the authority to regulate, verifiable evidence and of market failure carefully tailored rules benefits outweigh costs. i would like to ask you just a few questions along those lines. one, a little over a week ago the d.c. circuit issued its opinion on the network neutrality order. what do you think of the d.c. circuit's opinion and how do you think the rules that were tossed out by the d.c. circuit lined up with your concepts of

regulation? >> as harold mentioned he and i had a chance to work together on the telecommunications act of 1996 and we had an opportunity to work specifically on section 706 so we are familiar with the revision and out was drafted and how was crafted what it was meant to do and what it was not meant to do. i have arctic waited a couple of times in the last couple weeks am what i think should have happened in a the court case and obviously i have deep reservations. i actually disagree with the court's decision because i believe the commission did not have authority to issue. i think 706 has been abused and it should be returned to its original intent that we helped frame years ago. i had difficulty with that part of the equation. it makes it hard to get to the second part of a question that the fcc rules were thrown out in which ago doing forward is a question that we have posed many times and i think the commission as a whole is trying to digest what to go forward with.

>> why do you think chairman will do about the network neutrality rules? >> you know i have learned long ago not to guess what other people do in this environment that we live in. i do not have an insight on what the chairman may or may not do. he has articulated a couple of times in the last couple of weeks the authority that he believes he has in the commission has and what they would like to do. i take him at his word and would like to see what comes from that but i hate to guess. >> the house energy and commerce committee is beginning to hold hearings about a possible rewrite of the communications act. i am sure you have been following this closely. what advice would you give to the house energy and commerce committee on rewriting the communications act?

>> i would say first and foremost that i defer to my friends and former colleagues on the house and senate, the timing in the structure in the format of any type of consideration of a rewrite of the communications act. i have also made myself available in anyway that i can to help them as they perceived on the process going forward. in terms of advice i think it would be unfortunate for me to give advice. i look forward to working with them in any way i can but i hope that they take a thoughtful approach. it may take a little bit of time and that's probably a good thing. >> what i have to say is very refreshing. you are the fcc commissioners so you will want to get advice from congress or the other way around. speaking of which senator rockefeller has a proposal to

substantially expand the schools and libraries program. there has been some discussion i understand that the fcc about that. is this an area where the fcc is actively working and how do you see, how do you see a possible expansion of schools and libraries programs fitting in with the overall framework of 254? >> as i have previously articulated i am supportive of chairmen rockefeller's effort to modernize service programs especially the e-rate part of it. i'm open to figure out how best to do that. the commission has an npr am and is examining how best to do that. i favor moving to a less complicated system and for one that also addresses the total costs going forward and it how

can we increase speeds and function within budget that we have talked about. there is common ground in terms of modernize the program. it will come down to specifics going forward. in terms with how it fits in with the different pieces as you know very well universal service for e.u. rate is capped unlike the one remaining piece that is not capped. that is something we will have to relate to the other three pieces. see in your talk to missionary you mentioned the importance of periodic reviews of regulations to see whether they are working or not. the commission has in fact the communications act section 11 requires these periodic reviews in addition to the series of other administrative laws that i think the commission is now behind, not entirely sure.

where do you see for example the schools and libraries or grandma or other programs such as network neutrality fitting into periodic reviews of commission rules? >> i would take my principle and apply applied across-the-board. i don't think there's anyone that should be excluded. we should look at every rule and make sure consistenconsisten tly goes forward and is still relevant in the modern indications marketplace. i think that is what we are talking about when we consider modernization of e-rate program. how should look going forward in house and then to the other universal service programs? i think every program should be looked at. periodically. >> there are government programs that have caught the attention and imagination and perhaps the fears of american consumers in recent weeks and that has to do with nsa collection of

information and new proposed rules from the administration telecommutelecommu nications and other companies to maintain questions from the customers for years. is this an issue for which the fcc is actively engaged and what role if any do you see the fcc playing with the collection of information and requirements on telecommunications carriers? >> i should start by saying at this point i did not have security clearance in any fashion so i don't know anything of anyone's informatiinformati on. this is something i think the commission will weigh in. i think we stand ready to provide advice to other agencies and other government departments it may be involved in this space but i'm not sure -- the commission is spent a

considerable lot of time going forward. >> i was amused by your description of the blog buster hollywood merger. there have been others over the years, worldcom, sprint in 2000 i got locked because of a monopolization is something called the long-distance telecommunications market. what do you see as the role that the fcc in reviews and how do you see that playing out in coordinating with the --. >> first i would suggest this is something we have spent a considerable amount of time on as a congressional staffer. we try to figure out how to simplify the process to make sure it's completely thorough with simplified so you don't have duplicative agencies reviewing the same information. while they do have different statutes depending on the agency

there isn't over aggressive attempt to gather information so there is a way to simplify the review process. beyond that i think the mission has an obligation under the public interest to ensure that mergers are in the best interest of consumers but there is a level of review that sometimes gets exceeded. i would like to see the process being simplified. while still providing a thorough review. >> you were a staffer at the very highest levels of congress for many years. what sorts of issues do you think capture the imagination of members of congress and the senate the most when someone tells a senator something is going on with the fcc? what are the issues that immediately jumped to mind for senators and congressman?

>> it complete fairness to my former employers they do have a lot of issues going on and a lot of committees they spend their time on and a lot of things happening on the floor. they have a lot of responsibilities and specific day in my last closing days of my time on capitol hill i was running one of the most pressing matters. communications are extremely important and i acknowledge that. i'm happy and pleased to be in the position i am at but i suggest with all the other items they have to consider them have to work on and some of the more timely depending on the subject matter so it is tough to balance all of those requirements for a member of congress. working through those types of things i think when people approach members of congress about the fcc they certainly take an interest in the matter because they know how significant it is to the economic growth of the united states and they certainly have been tasked with many to further

inquire about the issue that was raised by whomever. i have done it on the legwork after-the-fact of whatever question was posed to a member of congress because there is interest. it may not just be immediate and timely to their schedule. >> i was both pleased and amused to hear you listing the private private -- issues that you analyze. there were four issues one of which, if i'm giving the speech as the commissioner 16 years ago it would have been on my list as well which was media ownership 16 years ago. it would have would have been on my list as well which was media ownership. and if someone had asked me 16 years ago if the media ownership rules would be around two years later i would have said no there

is no chance, they are going to be gone. and yet they seem more entrenched than ever. tell us where you see media ownership in the agency. i sensed a little bit of frustration but how do you see that playing out? >> in fairness it is frustration on my part because i believe the commission is an obligation on the statute that i helped work on behalf of the member of congress. i worked on extending the timeframe from two years to four years so i'm familiar with what we expected out of the commission. we are obligated and any employer is obligated to comply with the statue so i'm disappointed we haven't so far. in terms of what may happen in the future i'm hopeful the chairman and my fellow colleagues will tackle this issue in short order. in terms of what may happen i'm

open to listening to all of the dialogue and reading all of the record in and having as much information as possible and deciding on a going forward. >> section 11 requires the commissions review its rules every two years and every four years. you mentioned the media ownership provision every four years. there are other administrative law requirements and yet it seems like rules never are repealed. in fact it doesn't seem my fears an awful lot of serious review of the rules. what can be done to change that? >> in fairness to the commission they have reviewed some rules recently and repealed a number of rules. the question is the significant

rules have outlived their usefulness and that is where we have probably not spend enough time or enough work to deal with those situations. i mention going forward depending on how the site each rails go forward i am interested in accounting and jurisdictional separation. hopefully the commission will do that but you are right, the big issues have not been reviewed significantly by the commission we should spend time doing that. that's part of our obligation and as good stewards of the american taxpayers. >> i have publicly overextended the prerogative of the moderator i should open up the floor for questions and again we are at the hudson institute. please send your questions and

on c-span on our direct video feed. a question in the front and please identify yourself for a viewing audience. and wait for the mic. >> good afternoon commissioner. i'm dm davis. could you please give us your perspective on receiver standards and how legacy receivers with play into your if? >> okay, happy to do so. i am open to hearing from all parts of the industry and users in this space but i would suggest into many days of the closing days of my time on capitol hill over sea for standings actually did come up. it was something we talked about at length and there is probably an opportunity to improve standards but i want to have more information for the record. there is some room to move

forward on this item. >> i understand that there are no receiver standards. are you thinking of improving the rules? >> the rules to govern receiver standards in some regard so we have had a number of fights recently over whether devices are meeting certain obligations and whether they should be improved to help prevent harmful information. there have been conversations along those lines. i'm open to reviewing the root of having the full dialogue on this. >> thank you. >> absolutely. >> question. >> commissioner, scott clelland. you talked about the public interest and that is one where it's originally a concept for the railroad regulation in the 1880s that was put forward and

in the 30s when it was a monopoly and the airways were viewed as government property. since then we are no longer have monopolies and wireless can be private property. what thoughts do you have on applying the public interest test now that the underlying facts of it's not a monopoly and its property and how should that not be applied? it doesn't seem appropriate to apply it in 1987 in hindsight. the truth is i'm obligated to comply with the statute. in terms of how it applies going forward we have to be careful on imposing abstract viewpoints on the public interest. i articulated a number of things

to talk about my vision and what i would like to see happening going forward so we have to be careful by what we mean by public interest going forward. it is part of the statute so i'm required to comply with that obligation. there have been a lot of conversations in the past life and i'm sure there will be some going for it and whether to change modify or eliminate. as the former commissioner furchtgott-roth talked about certainly it will be part of the dialogue. >> next question. >> let me, if i can follow up on scotts question just briefly. the public interest is part of of -- has become a substitute for other parts of the language.

how do you see, how do you see the public interest standard fitting in as sort of a final check on the other factors that the commission must consider or do you think the public interest outweighs everything? >> i mean this in all due respect. i'm obligated to comply with the statute. that does not mean the public entry should be a grab bag for any type of additional views that people would like to add to a merger for additional obligations on a particular provider. i don't think it's something that should be distracted however i think it's something that provides.

>> we have one question from -- and the question is. [inaudible] >> i think views have changed. i do not believe that those entities that were intended to be regulated by 706 in the commission's rules are going to change their behavior going forward and that's good for consumers and good for the companies. i think we are going to see if pretty fairly stable marketplace going forward. that has been my conversation or the hundreds of my conversations internally. we are not expecting a dramatic shift in the paradigm giving that he struck -- court struck down 706. the second part is whether the authority of 706 you know whether it exists for the commission to do other things and whether i should --

believe it should be in place. again i defer to my former colleagues in the house and the senate but if there was an avenue or a barrier where someone was advocating for a complete repeal in my view of 706 is supposed to be operating that would cause that much heartburn. >> a question in the back. hold on, if you could just wait for the microphone. >> i'm carried with the center for integrity and i have two questions. the first one is one that i've address with julie brill. you seem to be going on a whack-a-mole hunt. are you going to develop a set of rules that will -- from foreign countries that are

taking the identities from americans and tracking them in the second question addresses the effectiveness of the fcc and relationship to on line channels. i'm reading more and more arguments about articles you may not have effectiveeffectiveness in on line world. >> let me tackle your first question first. i would need more information on this but i would suggest to you that we have a very aggressive federal trade commission and that may focus on this issue but i'm open to hearing more from you going forward. this is then something like i said we have spent a lot of time on capitol hill and in terms of consumer's identity being stolen something they spent more time on than the fcc but i don't want to foreclose potential involvement. i just need more information. the commission has authority on

line and whether can be helpful or not if i understood your question correct way. there are and i want to be cautious in my wording here. i have spent a lot of time helping members right the statute going forward in the last 20 years and there was a conscious thought at the time that many institutes we did not include on line at dignity or jurisdiction for the fcc. that was intentional. the members of the time did not support additional involvement of the fcc into on line activity so there have and a number of things that have come up that other agencies have looked at and let me just mention one. there are not a ton of provisions in the communications act or in other acts. we talked about 706 and 706 is

one where the commission tried to use the language to give them authority in the on line universe and how far they may take that authority is to be determined but the commission authority intended by congress to be rather narrow. that's something that congress always has to write to extend or increase or decrease and their obligations to do that on behalf of the rep or senator is of the american people. >> a question here. >> bryce bast chuck with -- and a to follow up on net neutrality. what do you believe is the best way forward in terms of regulating broadband access? >> as i indicated i believe that having numerous conversations both externally with providers and with consumer groups and a number of different folks and i think a live conversation is

happening as we go but initially i'm not expecting the marketplaces to change change all that much going forward. i do not see companies that are interested in significantly disrupting the current marketplace and it's in their best interest to serve the consumer and it's in the best interest of consumers as well. i don't see it dramatically changing going forward and i would be reluctant to impose obligations in this space going forward. >> commissioner you mentioned the importance of having factual information. the commission has requirements for annual reports for competition in various industries. it used to be that her many years the commission consistently found that there was competition in these

industries. in recent years the commission has refrained from making that conclusion. i am curious as how you see the value of these annual reports and the type of competition analyses that go on at the commission? >> i would say first and foremost i do know the congress is looking at whether to combine the number of existing report obligations to change the current structure so i would have to defer that part but in terms of whether i think the commission has done an actual basis of reports and in some instances they have been in others they haven't. what i would be worried about and have been worried about in many years past is that the reports be used to manipulate data. we should tell a very factual story and then let the chips fall where they may. i worry that data can be and i'm

not saying that it has been but i'm saying that it can be going forward be as factual as possible and the information speaks for itself. i worry that we would change that equation and some instances in the past it may have been more concerning than may be currently. >> we have time for one, maybe two more questions. >> since no one else is asking a question. since you were involved in writing 706 in most people when they read that provision they are surprised that the court interpreted it the way they did.

what you thought of 706 and how was applied and what potential voice you will have in interpreting the boundaries of 706 authority? >> i don't want to say too much because that's something we may or may not tackle going forward. i would just suggest and i think my former colleague will concur with me that the provision itself is you know generally, and laid seen recently a fair analysis similar to what people would refer to as congressional congressional -- the commission obviously has a different opinion and hopefully we can get back to the original meaning of the statue. i have difficulty as i've articulated, i have difficulty with the court's decision and quite frankly someone at the perspective of to envision how 706 was written you have to take into --

how was written and when it was written. it was republican houston republican senate working on a provision led by newt gingrich at the height of his power. we would write something that secretly gave the commission authority over the internet and yet we never told anybody. we never wrote about it in any of our analysis. we never wrote about it in any of our summaries of secretly gave it to authorities. >> don't tell anybody. >> then we turned around and started fcc reform hearing so we were concerned about the power of the fcc but somehow we gained authority and secretly and then we turned around and decided we had to review the authority that we have given it the commission. it's a real difficult extension on the process part of the equation that i recognize chords have their obligations where it's written and i know they are

different pieces. i'm very aware that what they are tasked with. it's very difficult for me as someone who was there to see a provision interpreted based on now and the complete declining of what the circumstances were. >> we will take the last question right here and then we will close the program. >> thank you very much. i was wondering if you could give us a perspective on the prospects for the spectrum that are currently held by lightsquared that -- because of the difficulties surrounding out. however the company works out, that spectrum is out there available for use by someone. could you offer your outlook on that and the long-term perspectives might he collects.

>> let me answer it this way. first, i am supportive of spectrum being used efficiently and spectrum to provide services to consumers. if i learned anything over the last many years it is a particularly heated discussion related to lightsquared and obviously this keeps going on at i would like to refrain from commenting too much. spectrum one way or the other should he use and hopefully we will get to the point where it is used to the benefit of consumers. >> with that please join me in thanking commissioner o'rielly. [applause] ..