quorum call:

mr. blumenthal: madam president, i ask that the quorum call be lifted. the presiding officer: without objection. mr. blumenthal: thank you, madam president. this month we celebrate the 41st anniversary of the supreme court decision in roe v. wade, a ruling that assured every woman her constitutional right to make her own decision about whether and when to have a

child, based on her fundamental right to have her privacy protected. i had the honor to clerk for the author of roe v. wade, justice harry blackmun, in 1974, shortly after that decision. and i can say that in that year few of us expected that we would be here 41 years later facing the kind of attack, in fact, the onschatz on women's health care and that right to privacy that we see again and again and again on the part of states and even in this united states congress. just today the house of representatives will debate and probably vote on a bill that would severely restrict very practically constrict a woman's right to choose, h.r. 7 is a

threat to that right of privacy. and instead of moving forward in protecting women's health, all too often we have seen those ongoing attacks after four decades this judgment is threatened by onerous and ongoing limitations repeatedly passed by state legislatures and this body. so i'm very proud to be joined today by two of my most distinguished colleagues, senator murray of the state of washington and senator baldwin of wisconsin, who have been really tireless champions for women's rights, for constitutional rights, and for women's health care. and i am humbled and admiring of the work that they have already done and the work that we have ahead of us.

because i've introduced with their support, particularly with the active work of senator baldwin, a measure that will proactively and preventively protect women's rights against this onslaught at the state level. the women's health protection act is designed to stop restrictions that purportedly protect women's health but really use that cause as a ruse and a employ to -- a ploy, to impose physical lay outses on clinics, admitting privileges on doctors, other kinds of severely burdensome restrictions like ultrasound retirements when there is no real -- requirements when there is no real medical reason for them and basically apply to abortion

health care the same kinds of restrictions and no more limitations than are required for medically comparable procedures. that's the basic principle. and the goal is to push back on the offensive onslaught on women's health care, to put us on the offensive rather than defensive. because undoubtedly most of these restrictions if not all will eventually be struck down by the courts but the resources required to do so are themselves burdensome on the organizations and groups and individuals who are forced to carry on that fight. i know about that fight because i helped to wage it as an attorney general in the state of connecticut for 20 years. i'm very proud that i enforced many of the laws that are designed to protect the women's right to choose including the

face statute, as the first attorney general to enforce the face statute we had many of the issues that are now before the supreme court in the mccullens have coakley case which i hope will be decided to uphold the buffer zone that makes women's rights real against the intimidation and the deterrence that antichoice groups try to bring. making these rights real. the right of privacy, the right to be left alone, is the fundamental reason that we've introduced the women's health care protection act. now, the president tonight will talk about many of the most important issues that matter to this country, economic opportunity, job creation, recovery from the deepest recession in recent history, giving people a greater sense of

confidence and trust in their ability to gain the skills that they need to move forward in their lives, mobility, economically in this country is one of the great challenges that we face for our children and our grandchildren. those issues of job creation and economic growth are what we should be debating, not h.r. 7, not the restrictions at the state level that seek to inhibit and impede a woman's exercise of that fundamental right to privacy. let's keep in mind what is important to the american people who sense deeply, because it is part of our cultural d.n.a., part of our fundamental reason for being as a nation, that we have a right to privacy over personal decisions that should be made by a woman in consultation with her doctor,

her health care provider, her family without interference by government bureaucrats or a politician. that's what's important and ending the chilling effect of those state restrictions is also one of the goals, the chilling effect that deters women from exercising those rights. making those rights real, protecting a woman's right to decide whether and when to have a child. every pregnant woman faces her own unique circumstances and challenges and she has a right to make her own decision based on her own values and guidance from the physician she trusts, the family members she loves and her personal goals what is right for her family. in the 40 years since roe v. wade, the attacks on this right

have not been slowed. they've merely evolved and they've taken new forms. i stand with my colleagues today and ask that we recognize together these pervasive threats, that we counter them and stand together in fighting back. i am very proud to stand today with senator baldwin and senator murray and proud to yield to senator baldwin. ms. baldwin: madam president? the presiding officer: the senator from wisconsin. ms. baldwin: thank you. and i thank the senator from connecticut. last week marked the 41st anniversary of the landmark supreme court decision in roe v. wade that affirmed that women have the right to make their own personal health care decisions and to have access to safe and legal reproductive care. the anniversary of roe should commemorate how far our country has progressed in the last 40

years in safeguarding women's reproductive freedoms and access to quality health care. but today i rise to recognize that history has been made in another way and that is turning back the clock. americans across the country expect to have access to high-quality, dependable health care when disme thei when they r families need it. unfortunately for women across this country, this access has come under attack. as my colleagues and i have worked to reform our health care system to expand access to quality, affordable health care, too many states have enacted record numbers of laws that restrict a woman's access to comprehensive reproductive health services and the freedom to make her own health care decisions. in the past three years, states across the country have enacted a total of 205 provisions that

restrict women's access to safe abortion services. in 2013 alone, states enacted 70 of these measures. in my home state of wisconsin, we are now ranked as one of the worst states when it comes to a woman's reproductive rights thanks to our republican governor and legislature. wisconsin women, families and their doctors are facing a slew of new and radical restrictions to health services mandated by one party, republican rule, in my state. most recently our governor has enacted four new restrictions on women's access to safe and legal abortion care in our state. for one, he signed a law that not only forces women to undergo unnecessary medical procedures but also imposes unreasonable

requirements on doctors that deliver care to women. i recently heard from a mother in middleton, wisconsin. she found out that her baby had severe fetal anomalies and would not survive delivery. she had to go -- she had to undergo an emergency termination and a clinic in milwaukee was the only place that would do the procedure. but because the governor was set to sign this law imposing unreasonable requirements on providers, the clinic was preparing to close its doors and wouldn't schedule her for an appointment. she and her husband were forced to find child care for their two sons and leave the state and travel to minnesota just to get the medical care that she need needed. if not for a federal court order blocking the law shortly after

the governor signed it, the admitted -- the admitting privileges provision would have reduced women's access to safe and legal abortions in wisconsin by 66%, closing several health care clinics and leaving women out in the cold. but unfortunately for this woman in middleton, the court order did not come fast enough and the governor's law disrupted her family during a deeply personal and trying time. the threat in wisconsin and in states across the country is clear. politicians are doing this because they think they know better than women and their doctors. the fact is, they don't. it is not the job of politicians to play bock at the and to dictate how these professionals practice medicine nor is it the job to intrude in the private lives and important health decisions of american families.

that is why i am proud to stand with my colleagues, including my good friend from connecticut and my good friend from washington state, and challenge these attacks on women's freedoms. i am proud to have introduced the women's health protection act, because every american woman deserves the freedom to exercise her constitutional rights by making personal health decisions for herself and for her family with a trusted doctor and without political interference. our bill makes it clear that states can no longer enact laws that unduly limit access to reproductive health care and that do nothing to further women's health or safety. the women's health protection act creates federal protections against state restrictions that fail to ensure women's health

and intrude upon personal decision making. it promotes and protects a woman's individual constitutional rights and guarantees that she can make her own responsible health care decisions no matter where she lives. elected officials should put politics -- should not put politics before women's health and women's safety. women are more than capable of making their own personal medical decisions without consulting their legislator, and every woman in america deserves the freedom to plan her own family, to make her own health care decisions and to have access to essential and quality women's health care services. we need to act now to guarantee that women will continue to have that freedom. today i stand with 33 of my senate colleagues and 99 members of the house of representatives to move our country forward with

the women's health protection act and to safeguard women's constitutional rights under roe. we need to act now to protect a woman's access to care and her constitutional rights no matter where she lives by enacting the women's health protection act. and again, i thank my colleagues, in particular my good friend from connecticut, in leadingous thileading us in thin here today on the floor but also in the introduction of the bill. i would yield back. mrs. murray: madam president? the presiding officer: the senator from washington. mrs. murray: madam president, i want to thank the -- my colleagues from connecticut and wisconsin for their strong voices and support for a woman to make her own health care decisions in this country and i appreciate them being here today to talk about that and to note with me that 41 years ago last week, just about 400 yards from

where we are standing here today, the course for women in this country was change changed forever. after decades of struggle, american had access to safe and legal aabortions. in one case, american women have gain the ability to make decisions about their own health care, their own bodies. at a time when some members of this body were far too long to remember, women stood up to the restrictive laws of states and the federal government and to the men who at that time wrote them. now, madam president, i'd like to think that after four decad decades, many of those who want to make women's health care decisions for them have come to grips the fact that roe v. wade is settled law. but unfortunately that notion is quickly shattered with one look at our legislatures across the country and efforts right here in congress. in fact, tomorrow the house of representatives is slated to vote on their misleadingly named

"no taxpayer funding for abortion act." that bill severely undermines a woman's access to insurance coverage of comprehensive health care and fails to allow her to get the care she needs even when her own health is at risk. it's nothing more than an attempt to eliminate access to abortion services while restricting a woman's able to make personal decisions about her own care. i guess we shouldn't be surprised, madam president. the truth is that the tide of these politically driven extreme and unconstitutional laws continues to rise. in 2013 our nation saw yet another record-breaking year of state legislatures passing restrictive legislation barring women's access to abortion services. in fact, in the past three

years, the united states has enacted more of these restrictions than in the previous 10 years combined. that means that now more than ever it's our job to protect this decision for women, to fight for women's health and to ensure that women's health does not become a political football. for that reason, today i will, along with 18 other members of my caucus, file a brief with the supreme court of the united states in the case of hobby lobby stories inc. v. sebelius. and just reic like the many atts before this case, there are those out there who would like the american public to believe that this conversation is anything but an attack on women's health care. to them it's a debate about freedom, except, of course, for the freedom of women to access their own care. it's no different than when we are told that attacks on abortion rights aren't an infringement on a woman's right to choose, they are about

religion or states' rights. or when we are told that restricting emergency contraception isn't about limiting a woman's ability to make our own family planning decisions, it's about protecting pharmacists. or, just like last week when we were told that a certain former republican governor's comments about women's libedo was -- quote -- "tone issue rather than a direct reflection of the republican party's misguided and arcane policies. the truth is, this case is about contraception. this is an attempt to limit a woman's ability to access care. this is about women. allowing a woman's boss to call the shots about her access to birth control should be inconceivable to all americans in this day and age and takes us back to a place in history when women had no voice or no choice. in fact, contraception was

included as a required preventive service in the affordable care act on the recommendation of an independe independent, nonprofit institute of medicine and other medical experts because it is essential to the health of women and their families. after many years of research, we know ensuring access for effective birth control has a direct impact on improving the lives of women and families in america. we have been able to directly link it to declines in maternal and infant mortality, reduced risk of ovarian cancer, better overall health care outcomes for women, and far fewer unintended pregnancies and abortions, which is a goal we should all share. but what's at stake in this case before the supreme court is whether a c.e.o.'s personal

belief trumps a woman's right to access free or low-cost contraception under the affordable care act. madam president, every american deserves to have access to high-quality health care coverage, regardless of where they work, and each of us should have the right to make our own medical and religious decisions without being dictated to by -- or limited by our employer. contraceptive coverage is supported by the vast majority of americans who understand how important it is for women and families. in weighing this case, my hope is that the court realizes that women working for private companies should be afforded the same access to medical care regardless of who signs their paycheck. we can't allow for-profit, is he skew already a corporations or their shareholders to deny

female employees access to comprehensive women's health care under the guise of a religious exemption. it's as if we're saying that bars a c.e.o. or a shareholder in a corporation, your rights are more important than your employees', who happen to be women. that is a very slippery slope that could lead to employers cutting off coverage for childhood immunizations, if they object to it, or prenatal care for children born to unmarried parents, if they thought that was wrong, or an employee's ability to access h.i.v. treatment. madam president, i am proud to be joined in this effort by 18 other senators who ar who were e when congress enacted the religious protections through the religious freedom restoration act in 1993 and who also were here when congress made access to women's health available through the affordable care act in 2010. they are senators who know that

congress never intended for a corporation or, furthermore, its shareholders to restrict a woman's access to preventive health care, because we all know that improving access to birth control is good health policy and good economic policy. we know it will mean healthier women, healthier children, and healthier families, and we know it will save money for businesses and consumers. so today we are taking another step afford to uphold the promise we made to women and provide this access broadly. and i believe that our nation will be better for it. with that, madam president, i have seven unanimous consent requests for committees to meet during today's session of the senate. they have the approval of the majority and minority leaders. and i ask unanimous consent that these requests be agreed to and be printed in the record. the presiding officer: without objection. mrs. murray: and, madam president, i ask unanimous consent that rose matuso, a fellow in senator coons' office,

be given floor privileges for wednesday, january 29. the presiding officer: without objection. mr. thune: i ask unanimous consent to spea speak for as muh time as i may consume. for no longer than 15 minutes. the presiding officer: without objection. mr. thune: tonight the president of the united states will come before the congress and make his state of the union address. that is an annual ritual that we go through around here every year, and i've been through state of the union speeches through multiple administrations. i sort of liken them to somebody making new year's resolutions at the beginning of the new year, filled with lots of rhetoric and promises, most of which gets left on the cutting room floor when the speech concludes. but that being said, it is something that gives the president opportunity to lay out his joandz for the coming year.

-- his agenda for the coming year. rumor has it that this year the president's speech is going to focus on income equality and economic opportunity. that is good to hear because these last five years of the obama administration have been devastating to americans who are trying to advance economically. nobody can deny that the president inherited a difficult economic situation. i think we would all concede that at the very outset. but he has had now five years, going on six, to make things better. unfortunately, he hasn't made much progress. for the majority of the americans, things don't look like better today than they did five years ago. economy still isn't working, unemployment remains at historic recession-high levels, income ineye he a. quality is at the -- inequality i is at highest poin. household income that is dropped since the president took office. i would like to quote from a piece published on sunday. "the last five years have been

cataclysmic. the average income of the top 1% of earners increased by about 31.4% from 2009 to 2012, while wages for the other 99% essentially stood still. the proportion of economic gains going to the very wealthy under the obama administration is greater than it was under mr. bush." end quote. madam president, those are not republican talking points. that's from a column published in the "new york times." the column goes on to state, "the rich-poor gap in the united states is now greater than in any other industrialized country. upward mobility, a staple of the american dream, is eroding compared with more than a few nations." end quote. that again, madam president, from "the new york times." whether the author intended it that way or not, it is a pretty damning indictment of the economic policies of the past

five years. i am glad i'm hearing that the president is planning to focus on income inequality and economic opportunity tonight. these statistics make it clear how important that is we have that discussion right now. they also make it clear that we exants continue the economic -- we can't continue the economic policies of the past five years because these policies have cleared faismed the president has tried throwing taxpayer money at the problem. witness the failed trillion dollar stimulus bill. he's tried economic band-aids that attempt to alleviate some of the symptoms of economic stagnation without doing anything to address the cause. neither of those strategies has been successful in doing the one thing that will turn our economy around, and that is creating full-time, well-paying jobs for american people. extending unemployment benefits or offering food stamps may provide short-term relief, but no government assistance is going to provide a stable,

secure, prosperous future like a good job wil will. real long-term economic prosperity comes when families have access to stable, full-time jobs with potential for advancement. if we really want to help americans, if we really want to get our economy growing, if that's where our focus needs to be -- that's where our focus needs to be, madam president, is creating the kind of environment where job creation can flourish, and that means making it easier and less expensive for businesses, particularly small businesses, which create a majority of the jobs in this country, to expand and hire new workers. unfortunately, the president spent much of his presidency making it more difficult. obamacare, for example, saddled businesses with a host of new taxes and regulations that have made it difficult or in some cases impossible for businesses to hire new employees. cbs news reports in december that "nearly half of u.s.

companies said they were reluctant to higher full-time employees because of the obamacare law." that's not how you want businesses to feel if you're looking to encourage them to grow and create jobs. so i'm hoping that this evening the president will turn away from the policies that have made nearly half of u.s. companies too worried to hire new full-time employees and turn toward policies that will enable real job creation in our economy. according to his advisors, the president wants 2014 to be a year of action. well, republicans couldn't agree more. and there are a number of actions that we think the president can take and i hope that he will announce them tonight. one thing republicans and democrats agree on and would like the president to do is grant immediate approval of the keystone pipeline. according to the president's own state department, the keystone pipeline would support 42,000 jobs that would provide $2

billion in wages and earnings without taxpayers having to spend a time. all that's required for the creation of these jobs is the president's aftepresident's appe has inexplicably delayed now for five years, despite numerous reports testifying to the benefits of the project and its low environmental impact. the president's staff has spent a lot of time talking about the president's intention of acting without congress, when congress disagrees with him. well, here's something, madam president, the president can legitimately do unilaterally. he has the authority to open the door to these 42,000 jobs, and i hope this evening that he will announce his intention of acting on approval of the keystone pipeline. another thing i hope the president will do tonight is encourage the majority leader to tank dozens of jobs bill -- to take up dozens of jobs bills

that passed the house of representatives. many passed the house with bipartisan support and could pass the senate the same way. there's no good reasoning why the majority leader has decided to let them languish. surely we could take up a few of those bills. in the same spirit, i hope the president will call on his party in the senate to approve trade-promotion authority legislation, which would help -- which would help create u.s. jobs by giving farmers, ranchers, entrepreneurs and job creators in this country access to 1 billion new consumers around the globe. republicans hope the president will use that phone of his that he keeps talking about to call. the majority leader encourage him to pass trade promotion authority as soon as possible. no discussion of relief for middle-class americans is complete without discussing obamacare, which is putting an intolerable burden on middle-class families and small businesses. i'm not very hopeful that the president is going to announce his intention tonight of working

with congress to repair some of the worst parts of his signature law, but for all americans' sakes, i hope he does. around the country families are realing undereeling under the if obamacare. meanwhile, businesses are cutting workers' hours, eliminating health care plans, or declining to expand their businesses to protect themselves from obamacare's burdensome 25678s antaxes and regulations. there is bipartisan support for more than one change to obamacare and there is particularly strong support for repealing the job-killing medical device tax, which is forcing medical device companies to send american companies overseas. in march of last year the senate voted 79-20 -- 79-20 in the united states senate against the tax. more than 30 democrats voted for repeal. if the president is really serious about putting americans back to work, he will announce

his intention to work with congress to repeal this job-destroying portion of his legislation. madam president, last month almost 350,000 americans gave up looking for jobs and dropped out of the labor force altogether. that's 350,000 americans in one month -- one month -- who gave up looking for a job. the labor force participation rate is at its lowest level in 36 years, more than 10 million americans were looking for work and nearly 4 million have been unemployed for more than six months. in fact, if you -- if you had the labor participation rate today that we had when the president took office, the unemployment rate today would be about 11%. madam president, it is definitely -- it is definitely time for a year of action. it's time to leave behind the economic band-aids of the past five years and focus on policies that will not address just the symptoms but the cause of our

weak economic growth. we need to remove the obstacles facing our nation's job creators so that struggling americans can finally get back to work. we need to help create a future wherever american has the opportunity for a full-time job with the possibility of advancement. madam president, you're not going to see that as long as the policies coming out of washington, d.c., and this administration make it more expensive and more difficult to create jobs for the american people. and you're not going to do anything about income inequality if you drive people's cost of living higher, which is what obamacare's premium increases, higher out-of-pocket increases, energy cost increases -- there are new regulations coming out today that are going to put new requirements and regulations on existing coal-fired power plants, that are going to drive electricity costs through the roof for the people i represent in south dakota. 50% of electricity in south

dakota comes from coal-fired power. we're told the administration is coming out with regulations that are going to apply those same things to -- three these are to existing coal-fired power. so you are he no not only goingw plants, but you are going to have existing plants that are going to have to modify their plants with technologies that don't exist yet. that you will does is put people out of work -- all that does is put people out of work and make it more expensive for middle-class americans to make ends meet. if you want to do something about income inequality, provide good-paying jobs for middle-class families in this country, put policies in place that make it less expensive, less difficult to create those jobs, and that drive down the cost for middle-class americans rather than raising them, rather than having higher energy costs, higher health care costs, higher this, higher that all because of policies coming out of washington, we can do better. the president has not always shown his eagerness to work with

congress in the past. i am told he will talk tonight about all the things he can do unilaterally. i am hoping that tonight's state of the union address will mark a new mark. republicans are ready to get to work. i hope the presidenc the presid. i yield the floor. the presiding officer: under the previous order, the senate the previous order, the senate >> i realize that tax reform and entitlement reform will not be easy. the politics will be hard for both sides. none of us will get 100% of what

we want. but the alternative will cost us jobs. hurt our economy, visit hardship on millions of hard-working americans. so let's set party interests aside and work to pass a budget that replaces reckless cuts with smart savings and wise invests in our future. let's do it without the brinksmanship that stresses consumers and scares off investors. the greatest nation on earth -- [applause] the greatest nation on earth can not keep conducting its business by drifting from one manufactured crisis to the next. we can't do it. [applause] let's a-- agree, agree right here right now to keep the people's government open and pay our bills on time and always uphold the full faith and credit of the united states of america.

[applause] >> watch president obama deliver this year's address. our preview program starts live tonight at 8:00 eastern with the president at 9:00. followed by the response from republican conference chair cathy mack morris rogers and your reaction by phone, facebook and twitter. the state of the union, tonight live on c-span, c-span radio and c-span.org. >> on our facebook page we have post ad question today, what issue do you want president obama and congress to address this year and here are all could have your comments. blake says, the only issue that matters in this country anymore is income inequality. it is multifaceted approach to fix the problem that very few will agree on. jon scott acknowledges overreach of federal bought, the states are sovereign territory that is afford the federal government certain rights and privileges. join in the conversation at facebook.com/cspan. ahead of the president's state of the union address tonight

house republicans spoke to reporters this morning and zeroed in on the country's struggling economy. house speaker john boehner reacted to the white house announcement that the president would issue a order to increase minimum wage to increase federal contracts. the speaker saying it will probably help zero people. here is a look at that briefing. >> good morning. a recent study showed that there are two third of americans that are -- 2/3 of americans living paycheck to paycheck without much in emergency savings but at a time that americans pay their housing bill, their transportation bills, their child care bills, their utility bills, they have very little left over to save for emergencies. you add to this the high

unemployment rate today and the folk that is have just all out given up looking for work and you quickly see the effects of this administration's policies and the pain the american people are going through. that's why republicans are stressing today and every day, our better alternatives, our view for a positive future for americans, to put more money in american's pockets, and putget people back to work and stimulate this economy. we join president in expecting this to be a year of action but if that is going to happen he needs to put down his pen and his phone, work with us, not work around us to make this country the great country that it can be. >> tonight we're looking forward to hearing from the president and from our colleague,

cathy mcmorris rogers. cathy will deliver a personal and conservative message about our desire to empower the american people. this has been the house's focus. we passed dozens of jobs bills that we continue to langish in the united states senate. you know the president says that he wants to make this a year of action. well, sound good but if he wants to make it a year of action let's work together to pass trade promotion authority that would expand exports and create more jobs in america. let's work together on building the keystone pipeline and tens of thousands of jobs that would be created as a result. let's work together to find common ground on the dozens of house-passed jobs bills that are sitting over in the united states senate, that really will help the american people have a better shot at a better job and higher wages. >> good morning. you know the working middle class in america is having very tough time right now and in fact, it's hard for many to find

a good job. wages are stagnant and it is harder to get ahead and if you want to find out about opportunity for educating your kids, it is becoming more expensive and out of reach for many. plain and simple, america is not working for the working middle class. we republicans want an america that works for everybody and it is clear that our policies are going to be aimed and have been at benefiting all men and women across the country. we're not interested in dividing this country. we want us all to have an economy that grows for everybody and we still have to worry about america's role in a global economy because it affects folks here at home. i had the opportunity to travel abroad this week with some of my colleagues and i think what i, my takeaway was, is there is a real blessing for an american action abroad because it is we would stand for freedom around the globe and i also visited poland and saw the consequences

of when we fail to do so. so we need an america that works for everyone. we need an america that leads and that's what our republican conference will be focused on this year. >> good morning and welcome back. as we all know today's a little different day than normally here in washington. the day of the state of the union. this is a unique opportunity for all of us. heading in tonight for the president's speech, latest polls show more than than half the country is disappointed in his job performance. he is headed into his last term. he has the lost years of his presidency. this is not a time for politics. personally what i'm looking for, to not miss this opportunity. don't miss this opportunity of a disgruntled country of where our job performance is going. find an opportunity where we can come together. find an opportunity where you're not going to tell you what i'm

going to do with a pen and a phone. that i'm actually going to listen. i'm actually going to work together. we'll put people before politics. it will not be about rhetoric. it will be about results and solutions. >> good morning. as you have already heard, my house republican colleagues and i agree with the president. the american people do need action and they need it now but why does the president think that he needs to circumvent congress with his pen and phone executive strategy? if the president truly cared about helping the american people and the workers he would simply look to the house of representatives for answers and over the last year the house of representatives has passed dozens, dozens of common-sense pro-growth job bills that streamline our workforce, that increase american energy production, and offer regulatory relief especially to those small

businesses. and form, we have passed legislation to protect the american economy from the harmful effects of obamacare. now the democrat-led senate could take up any of these bills, these house-passed job bills today and send them to the president and sadly these items are laying on the desk over in the senate on harry reid's desk waiting for action. this is simply unacceptable. jobs are more than just a paycheck. jobs represent our livelihoods. they instill in us pride and help us to take care of our families but sadly in this obama economy there are 91 million americans who are out of the workforce and stuck on the sidelines and they deserve more than speeches. they need action on the part of the president and the senate democrats. president obama should call on harry reid tonight to pass these common-sense, house jobs bills

and bring relief to the american workers. it is time for the democrat majority in washington to get to work so that our constituents can do the same. thank you. >> speaker boehner, "national review," publication has a lot of -- in your conference recently had editorial house gop should do nothing when it comes to immigration reform. can you guaranty americans after this retreat the house gop will do something regarding immigration reform? >> as you all know we're going on our retreat on wednesday and on thursday we'll have a discussion about immigration reform. we'll outline our standards, principles of immigration reform and have a conversation with our members. and once that conversation's over, we'll get a better feel for what members have in mind. >> would you act on -- >> -- legal status for illegal immigrants under what conditions? >> we'll talk to our members and

once we talk to our members we'll have more to say about how we move forward. >> -- executive order calling for minimum wage for federal contractors. [inaudible] calls for all minimum wage to be raised. what do you think about these executive actions and trying to go by congress and do you have any support for -- >> i suspect the president has the authority to raise the minimum wage for those dealing with federal contracts. let's understand something. this is a affects not one current contract. it only affects future contracts with the federal government. and so i think the question is, how many people mr. president, will this executive action actually help? i suspect the answer is somewhere close to zero. when it comes to the federal minimum wage, listen, i used to be an employer. when you raise the cost of something, you get less of it.

and we know from increases in the minimum wage in the past that hundreds of thousands of low income americans have lost their jobs. and so, the very people the president purports to help are the ones who will get hurt by this. when you look at african-americans and hispanics, they're the people who will never have a chance to get on the economic ladder. it is, it based policy. and it will hurt the very people the president purports to want to help. >> -- passed two clean debt ceilings. maybe argue one, definitely one. why is it different this time? >> listen, we've, we've dealt with the debt sealing a number of times over the last three years and over the retreat we'll have another discussion. i don't think we, republicans want to default on our debt. secondly the president has made clear he doesn't want to negotiate. thirdly, it has become obvious

to me having tried to work with the president for the last three years he will not deal with our long-term spending problems unless republicans agree to raise taxes and we are not going to raise taxes. and so the options available continue to be narrower in terms of how we address the issue of the debt ceiling but i'm confident that we'll be able to find a way. >> speaker boehner, what will pubs do in the cases where president obama things with his pen and starts to sign more executive orders? what can you do? >> house republicans will continue to look closely whether the president is faithfully executing the laws as he took an oath to do. now i think dealing with federal contracts and the minimum wage he probably has the authority to do that but we're going to watch very closely because there's a constitution that we all take an oath to, including him and following that constitution is the basis of for our republic and we should not put that in

jeopardy. >> what do you do? [inaudible] >> there are options available to us. we're going to have a discussion about that as well in our retreat. thanks. >> house democrats also briefed reporters today. they discussed the upcoming state of the union address, executive orders, the debt ceiling and a number of other issues. this is about 30 minutes.

>> can you sigh it now? >> it's about working together with congress to get things done, and where congress decides

to go into this shutdown mode of shutdown politics or if it tries to obstruct, then the president has determined that he should try to do what he can through his executive powers as president of the united states. and so i think most of us are all for the president doing everything he can to work with our colleagues here, republicans and democrats alike in the house and the senate, to get things done. but let's get things done. and where the president can get things done without having to worry about a do-nothing congress, that's why he's president, and we want him to get things done. at the end of the day, this is all about security. whether it's economic security, health security, it's about making sure that americans feel like they and their family are protected against the cold winds, the harsh conditions that might arise from a recession or from the lack of health care, quality, affordable health care.

or from not knowing the availability of a good school for your child who's done well in high school and ready to go to college. security. economic security, health security, that's what it's about. so when the president says that he's going to try to work with congress to increase the minimum wage to $10.10 an hour, we're with him. and when he says, well, if congress doesn't want to act, if we have folks who want to be obstacles to that, then he'll take action where he can as the executive to help make sure that people who work for federal contractors, people who get taxpayer money to do their work, to do their contracts, that they, those contractors, will will have to pay the minimum wage of $10.10 an hour to their employees. by the way, what does $10.10 an hour get you? many well, if you work an entire year, you're probably looking at something around $21,000.

if you happen to have a family of three, you, a spouse and a child, that barely gets you over the poverty level. and so to many of us, it's not just about economic security which is critical, it's about rewarding work. getting back to the days that i remember where my father, who was a road construction worker most of his life, had about a sixth grade education, a mother who came from mexico when she married my father at the age of 18, could still see their children go off and get a college degree. where we rewarded my father for the work he did as a road construction worker building those roads that we drive on today. we believed that if you worked hard, you should have a chance. we should get back to those days where we reward work. and so right now many americans, millions of americans are making less than $10.10 an hour. many americans are working and still having to go to the food pantry after work to make sure

they have enough food to feed the family. i believe the president's talking about action in 2014 because that should no longer exist. we should reward work, and we should have economic security, health security for everyone. it's time for us to do the things that people expect us to do as a congress. these games of shutdown politics should end. these days of using procedural votes to obstruct the ability of our country and our government to move forward should end, and we should let this economy launch. more than eight million jobs created over the last four years, and we can build on that. all we have to do is work together to get it done. but one way or the other, we've got to get it done. and i believe the president tonight will let us know that working with congress or if congress wants, working without congress, the president is going to get work done. we applaud him for that and look

forward to it, and let me now yield to the vice chairman, joe crowley. >> thank you, mr. becerra. first, i want to thank mr. lew, secretary lou for coming this morning, and reiterating that the president will not compromise on the debt ceiling. the republicans once again are trying to use every angle they can for concessions in one way or another. in this case, on the affordable care act. and the president is trying to move the country forward. we have to stop, as we've been seeing over and over again, these manmade fiscal cliffs, these manmade potential disasters. and i think the american people are tired of it, and they want to see the congress stop using these tactics and get on and do the business of the country. we also know that later today the republicans will offer a bill that will move towards deteriorating the rights of women in our country. once again demonstrating what

their agenda is all about. mike huckabee last week had irresponsible and ridiculous comments at the rnc meeting where he said that democrats think that women are helpless creatures whose only goal is for the federal government, uncle sugar, to provide birth control because they can't control their libidos. that's the type of irresponsible jargon that's being used by the rerepublican party today. republican party today. out of step with the american people and, certainly, out of step with women in our country. so what we're looking forward to tonight by the president, we're excited about that, we know that he's going to set an agenda for this year. he is looking for a partner. the president is looking for a partner in this congress. he's desperate for one. but he's also showing that if he fails to find one, he's willing to act in a legal way to help

move the country forward. and this particular case on raising the minimum wage as mr. becerra has so eloquently laid out for you and what that means. it's an opportunity for the members of congress on both sides of the aisle to demonstrate where they stand in this country. do they stand with special interests, or do they stand with providing an opportunity for middle class security in this country. that's what this year is about. whether or not republicans will demonstrate whether they stand with the special interests or strengthening the security of the middle class. and lastly, i just want to point out, you know, we've heard all this about how the affordable care act has been a job killer. speaker boehner being the lead cheerleader here on this particular aspect and said the affordable care act will kill jobs. nothing could be further from the truth. in fact, we've had 46 consecutive weeks of private

sector job growth in this country. since the day the president signed the affordable care act. entirely counter to everything that has been said about the affordable care act. it is not a jobs killer. it's providing health care security for millions of more thans and will continue to do so. and, again, what the president's looking for is attarrer in. he would -- is a partner. he would like to see the republicans move from this ageneral da of rolling back the tide and looking for a republican partnership in the congress to move the country forward. with that, i'll yield back to the chairman. >> so before we go to questions and then run to committee because the ways and means committee is holding a hearing, both of us are members, no surprise to anyone the committee hearing will deal with the issue of the affordable care act which, if you can believe this, the most powerful committee in the house of representatives, and some would argue the most

powerful committee in the congress, the ways and means committee, which has so much to do with driving our economy forward -- or in this case driving it back -- has not held a hearing on anything other than efforts to reeel or replace -- repeal or replace the affordable care act in the last six months and ten days. and today's hearing is no different. it will be the same thing. so as the vice chair just mentioned, while some of our colleagues in congress, our republican colleagues are obsessed with repealing the affordable care act, are obsessed with obstructing the president's jobs agenda, this is what's been going on. as our vice chairman said, eight million private sector job ares have been created in america since the affordable care act became law. and if you were to take the quote of mr. boehner, our speaker: in my opinion, he says,

obamacare is the biggest job killer we have in america today. the speaker said that january 6, 2011. eight million jobs since the affordable care act passed have been created. not just eight million jobs, but take the close to one million jobs that have been created in the health care sector alone since the affordable care act passed. if it's a job killer, you would think it would have killed jobs in the sector where it has the most impact. but the affordable care act has helped create almost a million jobs in the health care sector and almost eight million jobs have been created in those four years since. i also want to mention one last thing. the launch of these exchanges which started on october 1st, that's, that was the guts of the affordable care act, right? because that's where millions of of americans now have a chance to get coverage. well, since the launch of those exchanges more than nine million americans have gained health

security in this country. more than nine million americans just since october 1st. by the way, and in that same time since october 1st of 201, slightly more than three months, 530,000 jobs have been created in the health care sector. alone. so next time politicians want to stand up and make claims whether it's about death panels or about government takeover of americans' health care or ab job killing -- about job killing, ask them for the facts. because the facts make it clear what the president has helped us do and accomplish and what america's seeing in gaining health security is that we're also putting americans to work. with that, we'll take a question or two. ginger? >> the president is expected to address immigration today, are you confident he could do something through the executive orders he's talking abouted about, and what most are you looking forward to hearing him saying?

>> well, we've had a champion on immigration reform in the president since before he became president in 2008. and so we're hoping that the president will continue to make the push and emphasize to members of congress that we're close. the senate accomplished a bipartisan reform which would help our economy grow, would create jobs and would actually reduce our deficits by about a trillion dollars over the next 20 years. so hopefully our house republican colleagues will finally let us have a vote. i feel confident the president will do everything possible to make it easier for our republican colleagues to finally decide that they can do something on immigration reform. and given that the president has said that he will take executive action where he sees inaction on the part of congress and our republican colleagues, there are many ways on immigration where the president can take action that will not only be be be beneficial to our economy and to people in hurricane who are working or who are employing

americans, but it'd also be, i think, a way to help stop us from separating families who we know in the future are going to continue to be hard working americans and help us grow. so i feel confident that the president will give us not only a lift on immigration to get the reform done, but also use his powers to do the best thing he can whether it's for the economy, whether it's for health care or immigration as the president. >> if i just can answer that, i think, as always, the astronaut of the union is an opportunity for the president to express his vision for our country. there's no vision in this republican-controlled house of representatives. i think there is a lot, as the chairman has said, the president can do if he chooses to use executive order. i think we all recognize the best way to approach the issue of immigration reform is a comprehensive bill. set the agenda for the next decade or more.

this is something we've talked about over and over again, we'll continue to talk about it, obviously. but tonight i think what the president needs to do is spell out for the american people why we need to accomplish in this, why we need to get this done. i think members of congress understand it, but the american people also need to understand why it's in their interest to see that we have comprehensive reform, and the president will have an opportunity to do that tonight. >> okay. yeah, secretary lew at all touch on the debt ceiling which is coming up? i know he moved his deadline back. what did he tell the conference about that? >> the secretary, secretary lew did discuss the need for us to pay our bills and the importance of not playing with fire when it comes to the markets, interest rates and the livelihood of americans who are working and paying their bills. and so he made it very clear that the president's position

remains the white house's position, and the secretary articulated once again, we don't negotiate the livelihood of american families to extract concessions that have nothing to do with moving the economy forward. and so i think the secretary was very explicit that we have an approaching deadline to have republicans and democrats alike in congress authorize the legislation that leapts us pay for the -- lets us pay for the bills that members of congress in the house and the senate, republicans and democrats, authorize through their yes votes. and so the president's saying as the chief executive i can only administer the laws. the you pass the budget bill -- if you pass the budget will that required us to invest here or invest there and we now have to pay the costs to those american workers and american contractors who did the work, please,

congress, don't tell me that all of a sudden you're going to hold this all hostage so you can extract things like repealing the health security law that's helped over nine million americans in the last several months. and so we think that we can get this done working with the president, but it's good to know that we, hopefully, will not have this game of russian roulette, that at least the president and democrats won't engage in as we try to continue to move the country forward. >> it was -- [inaudible] secretary lew made as well is that because of the timing of the year, and i don't pretend to understand all the nuances to this, you may have to follow up with the secretary, but he has limited extraordinary means by which to extend the debt -- the need for lifting of the debt ceiling. so i think that demonstrates, again, an urgency that the 67th is not only -- 7th is not only an important date, it may be a

critical date t in terms of that. but maybe more to the american people, can anyone explain to the american people why it's in their interest to see interest rates rise? because that would be one of the more immediate results of failing to meet our debt obligationings. obligations. if we fail to do that, it costs more to borrow money. it costs more for the government to borrow money, and it costs more for the average american to borrow money. how is that in their best interests? i don't know. i fail to understand that. >> one or two more questions, then we'll run. >> just in the last hour speaker boehner told the press that the idea that the president is going to do things alone, he has to be reminded about the constitution. speaker boehner's saying we're not just going to sit here and let him trample all over us. at what point is executive action actually going against the constitution and taking power from congress? and how do you respond to what this president's doing and not being accused of that? >> the president's not trying to act alone.

when the president talks about working with congress to increase the minimum wage, the vast majority of not just members of the senate, not only the large number of members in the house and virtually every single democrat, but virtually all americans are with him. of the 300-plus million americans in this country, by a wide margin 70, perhaps 80% americans say we should pay people for working hard. and so for our republican colleagues who think that the president is trying to act alone when he says let's increase the minimum wage, wow, they've not been on earth for long enough to know what's going on. >> [inaudible] >> he's working with congress. he has said let's pass the legislation that's been introduced in the senate and the house to pass the minimum wage. but should he have to wait because of the entrance

generals, the obstacles that are placed by republicans? or because the republicans would prefer to shut down our government? i think he's saying i'll do what i can through, as the executive of this government. but i'll try to do as much as i can working with congress. i heard a report earlier, this morning, that the president said in his last year's state of the union, he gave us 41 different items to pass that would be helpful to the american people. of those 41 different tasks -- who the president had just got reelected by a wide margin -- how many of those 41 items did congress get to work on and pass? two. two. if we want to see another year of do-nothing because congress is unwilling to act or wants to obstruct or wants to shut down, then we won't get very far. i think the president says let's go as far as we can, and where congress finds it difficult to walk and chew gum, he'll do what

he can. it's not a matter of trampling, it's just asking congress to walk and chew gum at the same time. most of us believe that we were hired as members of congress to be able to at least walk and chew gum. and so there's no trampling here. there's no acting alone. the president's asking congress to work with him. but he's not going to wait forever because you got this heavy anchor or inaction in congress weighing our country and the economy and job creation down. we've got to get to work. >> could you just repeat the question? >> asking for a response to speaker boehner saying we're not going to sit here and let the president trample all over us. >> we're going to sit here and do what? nothing. because that has been what the agenda of the republican party has been, unfortunately. nothing. what the president's doing here with this executive order is leading. he's saying that this administration will not be complicit in holding back middle class security for this country.

with federal contractors. that's what the president is saying. it's not a panacea. this is not the fix we're looking for. but he's leading by example. sending a message to congress that we need to raise the minimum wage for all americans. he's sending a message to states, you need to raise your minimum wage. in much the same way when he led the country in terms of the dreamers on immigration reform. he helped bring back that issue to the forefront by, again, not a panacea, but helping to move the agenda forward. that's what the president's job is. he's not trying to abrogate the constitution, he's not trying in any way to be in violation of that. he wouldn't do that. what he's doing is trying to lead, and i'm impressed by that. >> we'll take one last question, and then we'll move on. yeah. >> whether you're getting a sense in the caucus about where members stand on the farm bill,

the conference report that's supposed to be on the floor tomorrow, particularly in regard to the volume of -- [inaudible] >> i think in this case what you're going to find is both democrats and republicans will be on both sides of this one. some members are going to support it, others will not. and in a way, it's the product of quite a bit of work that was done among the leaders of the conference committee that tried to get something done. some progress was made, some reforms were added to the farm bill that avoid some of the outrageous and unconscionable spending that goes on through subsidies for people who have nothing to do with agriculture or growing things who get writeoffs as a result of some of these programs in the farm bill. at the same time, we're talking about millions of americans who are going to be left without

food on the table or enough food on the table as a result of this, and it was going to be even a worse cut for the nutrition programs, but they reduced it. but it's still at a time when a lot of americans are still struggling not the kind of thing you want to see. so i think you're going to see members on both sides of this. and if i can before i ask the vice chairman for any comments, can i just say one last thing? my understanding is that speaker boehner with regard to the question about not being too happy that the president says he's going to try to do what he can as the president of the united states, when speaker boehner essentially says that, it boggles the imagination that the leader in the house of representatives prefers to have a president who will do nothing and twiddle his thumbs while he waits for congress to act. and my understanding is the actual words used by republican speaker john boehner were if the president tries to act, he will hit a brick wall. that the republicans are going

to be a brick wall. as the vice chairman just said, that's sort of what we've been up against for the last few years with republican leadership in the house of representatives. this republican congress has put up a brick wall to americans trying to get back to work. a brick wall to americans who are trying to see a decent wage and see an increase to the minimum wage. a brick wall when it comes to securing affordable health care and not having to worry about a child who has asthma not being able to get covered through insurance. a brick wall. i think the speaker spoke very not just eloquently, but honestly when he mentioned that republicans have been acting like a brick wall. we don't need brick walls in front of the american people. we need jobs. we need health security. we need good opportunities for schools. and so the last thing we need is brick walls. but you know what? we can pull out some

sledgehammers and get some work done if we need to, because we've got to get things done for the american people. it's time to get to work whether it's a brick wall we have to tear down or a wall of injustice or a wall of inaction or a wall of shutdown government. it's time for us to act, and let me let the vice chairman close. >> i'll be very brief. i am also grateful to those, in particular collin peterson who negotiated this bill on behalf of our caucus. but i will also say from what was a disastrous bill looking at a $40 billion cut to the s.n.a.p. ram, i am grateful it's not a $40 billion cut. and democrats are not for worsening, if that's the proper word, making more worse the issue, the reality of hunger in our country. we're trying to lessen that.

so for me, this is an important and very, very critically important issue. i will not vote for this farm bill, but i do recognize there are good aspects to it, and many of our colleagues have worked very hard and diligently to insure that their interests for their states have been met, and i respect that. but i sadly say that i will not vote for this farm bill because of these cuts. >> thank you all very much. >> thank you. [inaudible conversations] >> well, the u.s. senate is in recess for their weekly party lunches. lawmakers will return at 2:15 eastern for more debate on the

flood insurance bill. later the will join their house colleagues to attend the state of the union address. you can see the senate, again, at 2:15 eastern live right here on c-span2. >> i realize that tax reform and entitlement reform will not be easy. the politics will be hard for both sides. none of us will get 100% of what we want. but the turn will cost us jobs. hurt our economy. visit hardship on millions of hard working americans. so let's set party interests aside and work to pass a budget that replaces reckless cuts with smart savings and wise investments in our future. and let's do it without the brinksmanship that stresses consumers and scares off investors. [applause] the greatest nation on earth -- [applause]

the greatest nation on earth cannot keep conducting its business by drifting from one manufactured crisis to the next! we can't do it! [cheers and applause] let's agree, let's agree right here, right now to keep the people's government open and pay our bills on time and always uphold the full faith and credit of united states of america. [cheers and applause] >> watch president obama deliver this year's address. our preview program starts live tonight at 8 eastern with the president at 9. followed by the response from republican conference chair kathy mcmorris rogers and your reaction by phone, tastebook and twitter. -- facebook and twitter. the state of the union tonight live on c-span, c-span radio and c-span.org. >> well, this morning we posted a question on our tastebook page, what issue do you want

president obama and congress to address this year? and here are some of your responses. robert colby says: trans-pacific partnership and other trade deals that are being negotiated in secret. we, the people, are being shut out of the negotiationings. also linda says. jobs, jobs, jobs, jobs, something he has spoken about for five years and republicans have obstructed for that same amount of time. we welcome your reaction at facebook.com/c-span. two house subcommittees hold hearings today looking at the implementation of a deal and the prospects if for a long-term agreement to make sure iran cannot develop a nuclear weapon. that hearing gets under way at 2 p.m. eastern live on our companion network, c-span3. federal communications chair tom wheeler today spoke about the fcc's approach to net neutrality. verizon sued the fcc to try to block the agency's net neutrality rules. mr. wheeler spoke at a conference on internet policy

trends in 2014 and the future of the industry. [inaudible conversations] >> well, everybody, i'm the directer of the internet organizing committee, so welcome. our first guest is chairman wheeler from the federal communications commission, and we'll get to him in just a second. we have a acted agenda today. i've looked it over and, actually, i created it, and the least interesting thing is me. let me just do a few quick housekeeping matters. for the last eight years, jerry berman has welcomed you to this, and jerry can't be with us today. he's attending to a family matter, and he sends his regret withs. but as be of you know, the

internet education foundation hosts this conference, and this event was largely an outgrowth of the congressional briefings on internet policy we used to do in the capitol complex and we still do no this day in the rayburn building. and at some point jerry thought maybe we could get to people out here interested this these issues. and just to pupping chait that, let me just say in the last three months alone there have been two mainstream movies released at the core of their foundation was an internet policy issue whether it be the fifth estate or just recently at sundance the internet's own boy was released to rave reviews. so it's certainly mainstream in media and movies today. jerry demanded that, you know, this conference be, not take any positions op issues, but just kind of have all stakeholders come together and debate them collegially and passionately, so that's what this conference is about, that's what this

organization is about, the internet education foundation. you will see throughout the day folks, board members of mine from my volunteer board of directors come up and introduce different speakers, they kind of keep me honest with regard to not taking positions, and that's why this is a great newt central platform -- neutral platform. let me do a little bit of social media housekeeping, whether you're using google plus, facebook, twitter, instagram or snapchat, the hash tag is pond 14. they couldn't have picked a better venue, but their conference is in june which is on the adriatic sea across from venice -- [laughter] and i just, i really appreciate all you guys come trudging through the cold and wind today. what are we doing here?

i agree. >> i mean, tim, come on. [laughter] >> so thank you to our sponsors, google and comcast, for securing this venue and all our other sponsors, thank you so much. that is pretty much all i'm going to say except introduce stacy higgingbotham. she's been covering for about 11 years technology and .ish -- finance issues. stacy works from austin, i guess presumably in an attempt to keep it weird and wired. [laughter] so with that, i want to introduce stacy. take it away. >> thank you. hi, everybody. i am from texas, so i will say y'all. it is not an affectation, it is just who i am. so hopefully you guys won't mind. and this is chairman tom wheeler of the fcc, and i just found out that he is a buckeye fan.

[laughter] >> was there applause back finish. [laughter] >> i hear it for ut? [applause] >> wait a minute. >> mr. thank you guys. >> i think the odds are about even now. we have one in several. we're ready, we can handle that. >> i'm like is one of ours a mccoy? no. so that was really the most important fact i learnnd about chairman wheeler -- learned about chairman wheeler in our preconversation conversation. so i am really excited for this opportunity, because i am a huge believer in broadband. and when chairman wheeler came in and he published his 40-page kind of discussion about the network compact, man, i read that thing the second it came out, and i was like, oh, yes, this is going to be awesome. so i am super excited. and i thought we should just talk quickly, kind of go over your cop sent of the network. -- concept of network compact.

>> well, you know, stacy, first of all, if you want to do venice, okay -- >> i'm in. [laughter] >> we could partner up, okay? >> i believe it. >> so i am a frustrated amateur historian, and i tend to look at everything through a historic lens. and so when it comes to networks , i think we're in the midst of the fourth great network revolution in that the lessons learned and the stories that were those earlier revolutions which were the printing press, the rrld, the telegraph which then became electronic communications and now the marriage of high-speed computing and delivery systems.

that those kinds of lessons are applicable to us today. and if you look at them, there comes out of all previous network revolutions a series of basic concepts. you have to have access to the network. the networks have to interconnect. there is an important public safety and, indeed, national security component of that. in that there is a need for some kind of consumer protection, consumer representation in the process. and that's what i call the network compact. and the question becomes as we move into this fourth network revolution, how to will those kinds of concepts continue. for the last hundred years with

the telephone network, we've had a set of rules, a set of operating guidelines, a set of this is what i know, this is how i as a consumer can expect to interface with network. as we go to an all-ip network, the technology has changed, but the basic compact concepts have not. and so the challenge becomes how do you port -- to use a digital term or a network term -- how to you port those concepts over into the new reality. and so what we're going to be doing later this week, thursday, is we'll be voting on an item that lays out a plan for running a series of trials on the impact

of all ip on consumers. and, you know, a lot of people have talked about these as technical trials. they're not technical trials. we do not need -- i know it's a shock to you -- [laughter] we do not need trials to figure out how to build ip networks. >> they work. >> they work, okay? we know how to do that. what we do need to do is to understand what happens when that's the network, that's everything we're relying on. and how do we make sure that those basic values that are in the network compact transfer over. >> and let's, can you get a little bit specific about the balk values? >> sure. >> because when i think of, like, my house -- we built it last year. it has no phone jacks in it with the exception of an elevator shaft which i don't have an elevator in. but it had to have of a phone jack, because regulations required any elevator shaft.

and i was like, god, my house is strung with cable cans for fiber access and a phone jack. so what are the things that you guys are focused on as you look ahead to all ip? and what are you looking for in these trials? >> so rule number one of a trial is you don't want to prejudge it by saying, okay, here's what i'm looking for going in. so, but i will tell you that what you want to have, is you want to have a measurement capability that establishes a set of metrics that allow you to draw conclusions. and that's what -- that's how we're going to be structuring these. i mean, the trials will be run by various carriers, whomever. and what we're going to be saying to them is, god bless, go

at it, okay? use your best judgment, and we want to know the following kinds of things to help in the measurement of what's really going on out there. >> so is this things like i can call 931 from my voip -- 911 from my voip line and people will show up? >> that's kind of table stakes. >> that's how i feel. >> so, but here's the thing, if we want broadband to grow and flourish, it has to be able to provide services like that. >> it does. >> because nobody's going to sign up for broadband if they can't get 911. nobody's going to sign up for broadband if if their help, i've fallen down button doesn't work,

right? and you go through these whole series of things. so what we have to do is to say, all right, for broadband to go be and realize its full potential -- to grow and realize its full potential, there are a group of expectations that it has to meet. again, that's the network compact. and it's not only in consumer facing -- >> right. >> -- but it's in the back end systems. so interconnection is a component of the network compact. the internet, the term "internet" is short for the original term which was internetworking. >> right. >> okay? because there is no such thing as the internet. the internet is the result of

the interconnection of a series of diverse networks using a common protocol. >> right. >> if those networks don't interconnect, there is no internet. so again, in the trials it's not just stacy and the forward facing of the consumers, but it's also the back end and how do we make sure that -- you know, let's go back to the history. theodore vail built at&t by leveraging off of interconnection. >> uh-huh. >> at&t ran the long lines, ran long distance, and vail said to various independent telephone companies you either sell out to me, or you don't get on. >> right. >> we're not going to let that history happen again. >> okay.

>> that's not what the future of the internet is all about. >> so you're jumping ahead a little on something i'm going to ask you about, but -- [laughter] actually, we'll do it, because otherwise it might confuse the issue. so this is something i've actually been writing a lot about because, because many silicon valley and the people i write for, this is a huge issue that's come out in the last -- it has happened since, you know, 2007, 2008, but in the last 12 months or so it has gotten particularly bad, and that is this idea of interconnection. and we can call it settlement free peering like paid peering, there are options. but at places where these networks interconnect, studies have shown that those are the places where problems occur. and for consumers who are at home watching netflix, they're like -- or youtube -- they're looking at their screen, and they can't get anything in hd, or it's pixlating.

i can go on comcast forums, for example, and i can see pages of people upset, and then i see the technicians responding with, well, we're doing this, but if you're trying to watch netflix, you know, it could be their servers. so there's a problem of disintermediatuation. but when i talk to the big providers, they're like, well, it's not a problem of that, it's a problem of where we meet comcast's network, because they're saying to us that if we don't pay either a cd, in the to come in or comcast directly, they're not going to let us through except best effort, and when things get really congested, that best effort can be problematic. so given the interconnection that's part of that network compact, what does the fcc -- what role should the fcc play in kind of dealing with this that's happening? >> first of all, i've been

there. i understand exactly the situation that you're describing. chiang this -- i don't think ths tmi, but my wife and i like to lie in bed and watch netflix. [laughter] >> it depends on what you're watching. [laughter] >> that's as much information as you're going to get from me this morning. >> no comment, all right. >> many and literally, why is this happening, you know? you're chairman of the fcc, why is this happening? [laughter] but, you know, today we call interconnection peering, all right? it's not different, it's just a new name. peering was an engineering

concept in the early days of the net that the engineers, as engineers are wont to do, built something that was straight forward and simple and would operate and the economics of it were just not even close to their thinking, you know? and traffic will be exchanged, and we'll all do essentially the same, and it'll all be a happy ending. when it moved from an engineering concept to an economic concept, the engineers got patted on the head, said thank you very much, and now how do we deal with this as an economic -- [inaudible] and so the challenge that i think we're going through right now is you want to make sure

that there is innovation, you want to make sure that there is experimentation, you want to pick sure that you are allowing a network to evolve and operate and not have the kind of command and control structure that was possible in the old days. but at same point in time you want to make sure there are not abuses. and we were talking before we came out here. you know, a lot of people seem to think that the whole peering and interconnection topic the same as net neutrality. of it's not. it's a different issue. it's a cousin, all right? maybe a sibling. but it's not the same issue. but i think that it is an issue

that is something that the commission has to stay on top of, that the commission will be -- not will be, invites comments, stories, what people feel aren't abuses, full many debate -- fulsome debate x. that our job is to make sure that whatever happens is not anticompetitive, is not favoring one party. i'm the isp, and i've got an investment in this and, therefore, these guys come through faster or whatever. and that's the challenge that we have to apply to to make sure that it is a competitive,

vibrant, nonpreferential market. but our job is more challenging than it was in theodore vale's day when you could say thou will do that. because we've moved to an environment where instead of having a centralized network, we've got a distributed network. instead of the action being here at the switch where you could have some controls, action is now all out here. and that changes the kind of approach that a regulator needs to, needs to take. we've got to be responsive to all the stuff that's happening out here. you got to recognize what's going on in peering. you've got to say how can i encourage innovation and make sure there isn't abuse. and that's what makes this job interesting. i mean, the exciting thing about this job for all five of us commissioners is that we get to

sit here in the middle of this fourth great network revolution and deal with issues just like this. and it's something that makes you want to get up in the morning. >> i'm glad. keep getting up because my netflix, i really want to watch it. [laughter] well, we wrought you -- you have now brought me very gracefully to the net neutrality issue which peering may not be, but we certainly, the u.s. court of appeals did strike down your ability to or the fcc's kind of open internet order. and i know that in silicon valley people are really freaked out, like fred wilson who is a venture capitalist wrote a wonderful blog post where it's like the worst case scenario. a company wants to deliver a

service over the internet, and i'm like, nope, did you pay the isp? because their going to stop you. i think that's everybody's great fear, and be it makes for great headlines. but let's talk about what you think will happen, what you guys are looking at and then what you guys plan to doment we probably should ask you what you plan to do first, and then we'll go into the what-ifs. so about the court vacating most of that decision. be. >> well, i'm not going there yet. >> okay. [laughter] i figured as much. >> but points for asking. but let's talk about some in general. verizon went to the court and said tell us the fcc does not have jurisdiction over the internet. and the court said not so fast. >> right.

>> and that's a big step. >> yes. >> the court took a look at the antidiscrimination and the nonblock structure. not the concepts, the structure. and said, no, this structure is too close to what you said this wasn't, a common carrier. and we're not going to let you do it this way. but they said but let us tell you what does work, what would work. i have said publicly that i interpret what the court did as an invitation to us, in that i

intend to accept that invitation. >> and you have said publicly, you have talked about kind of what you see happening and wanting to do it on a case-by-case basis. and i'm curious what you mean by that in terms of if an abuse is found, i mean, should i be filing complaints with the fcc when i'm tracking my packets across the network? [laughter] what does that mean for people who are very concerned about what might happen and possible, possible blocking or -- >> so i think what that, what that means, this is not your case or susan ness' case or somebody else's case that we're talking about. what we're talking about is that the internet is evolving so rapidly that we want to look at case sets as well as generic

concept rules. >> okay. >> so that what we don't want to do is to say that somehow we're smarter than the net. because i can stipulate to that. we aren't. >> it kind of depends on what part of the net you're on, actually. >> i, you know, i will stipulate to the fact that -- but look at the cases that develop, and look at them inside a construct that the court told us is what does this do for the expansion and growth and furtherance of the internet. and add to that our consumer protection responsibilities.

and address issues in a dynamic rather than a static way. that's, i mean, don't confuse -- case by case is a dynamic approach rather than, well, this is -- everybody's got to go through the eye of this needle. and that's how we hope to approach things. >> does that put you at risk or put all of this at risk under a different chairman or as regimes change? >> well, you know, i can only take a bath in the stream that's going by, right? and, but i to think that it is possible, and one of the things, again, that is really significant about this point in time, i do think it is possible to establish some concepts. the court made its decision

based around a set of concepts that were developed by one of my predecessors. and have taken on a life of their own. i think it is entirely possible to have that same kind of establishing the foundation that will prevail. >> okay. >> over time. >> and you had made some comments, actually, in october, i think it is, about kind of the creation of a double earth. it seemed to be in favor kind of what the telcos like to call a double-sided market which is the consumers pay for their broadband and then something like netflix or anybody would also pay the ip for access to the end consumer. and i'm wondering if you wanted to add kind of little bit of clarity behind that. a lot of people look at that and they're like, gosh, that is exactly what net neutrality was designed to prevent, and then they're a little concerned. >> so, principle, you've got

to -- as i know you do, you've got to understand the difference between what the internet order did for wireless verse sis wired. and in a wireless environment, which is what i was talking about here, it is, it clearly allows and encourages, in fact, this kind of -- >> yeah. you can only cram so many bits per hertz. >> so i think you've got to -- so what i was trying to say was that we believe markets should be innovative. and at the same point in time, we are not reticent to say, excuse me, that's anticompetitive. excuse me, that's self-dealing. excuse me, this is a consumer abuse. and to make those kinds of judgments. and we want to encourage the

dynamism, and we want to have the oversight that does two things; enables a broad canvas that says basically here's the kind of concepts we want to operate in, the four corners on which everybody can paint inside those corns and then also gets really specific and says, no, that's anticompetitive. and, again, i'm not smart enough to know what comes next. i think we are capable of saying that's not right, and there is no hesitation to do that. >> all right. well, i am excited, and thank you so much for spending so much time on basically netflix versus the internet. [laughter] we didn't get a chance to talk about education and broadband access and that sort of thing, but i know you wrote a blogpost

on friday, so people should -- >> so what is so significant about broadband, stacey, and what really gets me pumped up is there's been too much time talking about broadband, broadband, broadband that it's not just broadband, it's what broadband enables. so, for instance, if we can use high-speed internet access to provide a 21st century education for our kids and we don't, shame on us. and this agency has responsibility for overseeing e-rate program. tell you a story. gigi zone and i about ten days ago were at a middle school in oakland, california.

and we were going from classroom to classroom, and along the wall in all the classrooms was about a 4-inch conduit that had plugs, electric plugs and ether net ports in it about every 4 or 5 feet. and i looked at that, and i said that's the old internet in the classroom. that's when the computer was over there, and you went to it. because in this classroom there was also a wi-fi router on the wall, and kids were sitting at their desks with their, in this case, chromebooks, and they were accessing all kinds of content. and so the internet has moved, and the use of technology in schools has moved to the computer over there to the computer on the desk.