what makes your proposal different? guest: i am glad you asked. no labels is not a third party. and we are not backing independent candidates or democratic candidates or republican candidates for that matter. what we are trying to do is bring together democrats, republicans, and independents around a reform agenda that would actually make the congress work better and enable it to do the people's business better. other people may be proposing independent or third-party candidacies and certainly their right under our laws, though our laws do make it difficult

for independent third party candidacies to get on the ballot, but we are choosing to pursue a different course. host: one of the items no label is recommending in the make congress work plan is creating a question time for the president. tell us more. guest: well, this is an idea drawn from the british parliament and probably many c-span viewers have tuned in and listened to or have actually watched question time in the british parliament. it happens on a weekly basis, i believe, for the prime minister. we're proposing on a rotating basis once a month, the president of the united states appear before the house and the senate, or 60 or 90 minutes, to answer questions from members on both sides of the aisle. we think that would accomplish a number of important objectives. first of all, there would be a lot more communication between

the president and congress. right now there isn't very much. secondly, the president would really have to be on top of his government. because he will not know in advance what the questions are going to be about, and in the same way the british prime ministers pride themselves on being briefed to the gills on what's going on so they can't be surprised by questions, we think this would be of aid to the president. and third, it's just possible that during this question and answer period, some areas of possible common ground and compromise might emerge. there's nothing like face-to-face dialogue to create new possibilities, in our opinion. so that's what's behind that proposal. host: janet, republican caller from st. albans, west virginia, welcome. caller: yes. they just mentioned about the laws. i don't know that obama goes by any laws but his own. another thing, there's too many friends and relatives in

congress, and i could go on for two hours here, and besides that, obama, he expects us to tighten our belt but he's just having a ball it seems like to me. i don't know who's doing anything in there, really, and he's got all these friends and cronies behind him and that you can't get rid of holden, he should retire or step down or something, he's just busy going on vacations and parties and just like spending money like it's -- well, he is printing it, that's true. host: what do you think about the no labels effort, what do you think about their make congress work plan? >> if you explain that to me, i'm sorry. the no label, what is that host: it's part of our group, bill gullton co-founded and have a plan called make congress work which would do

things including make sure the congress doesn't get any pay if they don't pass a budget. it also calls for filibuster reform and would make members come to work in washington. >> we're going to break away from the remaining portion of "washington journal" a reminder you can see it every morning live at 7:00 a.m. eastern here on c-span. back now to the u.s. house. they return for work on two measures. members considering bills with immigrant visas for israelis and exemptions or exceptions to foreign sovereign immunity. votes expected 6:30 today.

the speaker pro tempore: pursuant to th rule, the gentleman from texas, mr. smith, and the gentleman from california, mr. berman, each will control 20 minutes. the chair recognizes the gentleman from texas. mr. smith: madam speaker, i ask unanimous consent that all members have five legislative days to revise and extend their remarks and include he extraneous materials on h.r. 4086 currently under consideration. the speaker pro tempore: without objection. mr. smith: madam speaker, i yield myself such time as i may consume. the speaker pro tempore: the gentleman is recognized. mr. smith: madam speaker, i want to thank the gentleman from ohio, mr. chabot, a leader on the judiciary committee, for introducing this legislation. i also want to thank mr. conyers and mr. cohen for their support as well. this bill preserves the ability of u.s. museums and educational institutions to continue to borrow foreign government-owned artwork and cultural artifacts for temporary exhibition or display. the united states is long -- has long recognized the importance of encouraging the

cultural exchange of ideas through exhibitions of artwork, loaned from abroad. cultural exchanges produce substantial benefits to the educational and cultural development of all americans. the future success of these exchanges depends on foreign lenders having confidence that loaning artwork to u.s. institutions will not open them up to lawsuits in u.s. courts. for 40 years the immunity from seizure act provide foreign government lenders with this confidence. however, rulings in several recent federal cases have caused that confidence to unravel. in these decisions, the act does not preempt the foreign sovereignty immunity act which provides u.s. courts with jurisdiction in cases against foreign countries. the effect has been to open foreign governments up to the jurisdiction of u.s. courts, simply because they loaned artwork to an american museum or educational institution. this has seriously threatened the ability of u.s.

institutions to borrow foreign government-owned artwork. it has also resulted in cultural exchanges being curtailed as foreign government lenders have become hesitant to permit their artwork to travel to the united states. the bill addresses this situation. it provides that if artwork is granted immunity by the state department under the immunity from seizure act, then the loan of that artwork cannot subject a foreign government to the jurisdiction of u.s. courts under the foreign sovereign immunities act. this is very narrow legislation. it only applies to one of the many grounds of jurisdiction under the foreign sovereign immunities act. it requires the state department to grant the artwork immunity under the immunity from seizure act before the provisions of the bill apply. in order to preserve the claims of victims of the nazi government and its allies in world war ii, the bill has an exemption for claims brought by these victims. if we want to encourage foreign governments to continue to lend

artwork to american museums and educational institutions, we must enact this legislation. without the protections this bill provides, rather than lending artwork to u.s. institutions, foreign governments will simply deny american loan requests. so i urge my colleagues to support this bill and, madam speaker, at this time i'd like to yield two minutes to the gentleman from ohio, mr. chabot, who is the author of this legislation. and an active member of the judiciary committee. the speaker pro tempore: the gentleman from ohio is recognized for two minutes. mr. chabot: thank you, madam chair. i'd like to thank my colleague, the distinguished chairman of the judiciary committee, mr. smith of texas, for yielding the time and he explained it much better than i can. but i'll make a stab at it myself. h.r. 4086 is really a straightforward bill which would better clarify the relationship between the immunity from seizure act and the foreign sovereign immunities act. since 1965 the immunity from

seizure act has provided the executive branch with authority to grant foreign artwork and other obtains of cultural significance -- objects of cultural significance immunity from seizure by u.s. courts. the err purpose of this was to en-- the purpose of this was to encourage loaning and sharing exhibitions between u.s. and foreign museums. however, there's now a clonfict -- conflict between the immunity for seizure act and the foreign sompity immunities act that has interrupted this exchange. a provision allows u.s. courts to have jurisdiction over foreign governments when their artwork is temporarily imported into the u.s. putting foreign artwork and artifacts at risk of seizure. unfortunately this is -- this has led in many instances to foreign governments declining to import into our country artwork and cultural objects for temporary exhibitions. north to -- in order to maintain the exchange of government-owned artwork and artifact, congress should clarify the relationship between these two acts and this

bill would do just that. ensuring that american museums like the cincinnati museum center and the cincinnati art museum, to in my district, can continue to enjoy international artwork and cultural artifacts. enacting this legislation will remove a major obstacle to foreign loans and exchanges to american museums. i urge my colleagues to support this and i would also thank the gentleman from california, mr. berman, and the gentleman from michigan, mr. conyers, for their leadership and their support in this effort and i yield back the balance of my time. the speaker pro tempore: the gentleman yields back. the gentleman from texas reserves. mr. smith: madam speaker, we have no other speakers on this side and i'll yield back the balance of my time. the speaker pro tempore: the gentleman from texas yields back. the gentleman from california is recognized. mr. berman: thank you, madam speaker. i rise in strong support of the bill. i ask unanimous consent for leave to revise and extend my

remarks. the speaker pro tempore: without objection. mr. berman: and i yield myself such time as i may consume. the speaker pro tempore: the gentleman's -- the gentleman is recognized. mr. berman: this bill arises from a tension between a 1963 statute providing foreign art collectors immunity from seizure and the foreign sovereign immunities act. it specifically stems from a 2007 court decision that broadened the exception under the fsia and allowed pursuits on artwork under the 1963 law. the los angeles county museum of art and other museums have made clear to me the chilling effect of that decision on artistic exchanges. this bill resolves the inconsistency between the foreign sovereign immunities act and the 1963 statute and protects critical cultural exchanges. specifically the bill would clarify that foreign states are immune from lawsuits that seek

damages for artwork that may already be immune from seizure pursuit to a presidential determination. i support this bill for several reasons. first, cultural and artistic exchanges are a powerful form of diplomacy that foster mutual understanding and this bill would remove obstacles to such exchanges. second, the bill is narrowly crafted. it provides sovereign immunity only in cases in which the president already immunized the artwork in question. third, h.r. 4086 includes an exception for nazi era claims. this carveout is consistent with long standing american policy to seek restitution when possible for victims of the nazi government, its allied governments and its affiliated governments. i urge my colleagues to support the bill, reserve -- i yield back the balance of my time. the speaker pro tempore: the gentleman yields back. the question is will the house suspend the rules and pass h.r.

4086 as amended. those in favor say aye. those opposed, no. in the opinion of the chair, 2/3 of those voting having responded in the affirmative, the rules are suspended, the bill is passed and without objection the motion to reconsider is laid on the table. for what purpose does the gentleman from texas seek recognition? mr. smith: madam speaker, i move that the house suspend the rules and pass h.r. 3992, to allow otherwise eligible israeli nationals to receive e 2 nonimmigrant visas -- e-2 nonimmigrant visas. the speaker pro tempore: the clerk will report the title of the bill. the clerk: union calendar number 282, h.r. 3992, a bill to allow otherwise eligible israeli nationals to receive e 2 -- e-2 nonimmigrant visas if

similarly situated united states nationals are eligible for similar nonimmigrant status in israel. the speaker pro tempore: pursuant to the rule, the gentleman from texas, mr. smith, and the gentleman from california, mr. berman, each will control 20 minutes. the chair recognizes the gentleman from texas. e- mr. smith: meeks, i ask unanimous consent that all members have five legislative days within which to revise and extend and ex tnd tend their remarks and include extraneous materials on h.r. 3992 currently under consideration. the speaker pro tempore: without objection. mr. smith: i yield myself such time as i may consume. the speaker pro tempore: the gentleman from texas is recognized. mr. smith: madam speaker, h.r. 3992 is legislation that was introduced by our colleague, howard berman, which i have co-sponsored, and i appreciate his leadership on this issue. the judiciary committee approved this legislation by voice vote. the bill adds israel to the list of countries eligible for e-2 visas.

e-2 visas are temporary visas available for foreign investors. a foreign national may be admitted initially for a period of two years under an e-2 visa and can apply for extensions in two-year increments. the u.s. has entered into treaties of commerce that contain language similar to the e-2 visas since at least 1815 when we entered into a convention to regulate commerce with the united kingdom. currently the nationals of over 75 countries are eligible for e-2 status, from albania to the ukraine. in fiscal year 2010, over 25,000 aliens including dependents were granted e-2 visas. . in the past, countries became eligible to the e-2 program through treat yees signed with the u.s. the judiciary committee reached an agreement that no immigration provisions were to be included in future trade agreements. as a result, specific

legislation would be required to add countries to the e-2 program. in order to qualify, an investor has to have a controlling interest in and will develop and direct the enterprise. the investor has to invest and put at risk a substantial amount of capital. this is measured by a test, the higher the cost of the business, the lower the proportion of its total the investor has top represent. the investment has to be large enough to ensure the investor's financial commitment to the enterprise and the investor will develop and direct it. i urge my colleagues to support h.r. 3992 and i thank my colleague, congressman berman of california, for introducing a commonsense bill that helps spur job creation and economic growth here at home and also invest in our relationship with one of our closest allies. the investments in business

enterprises fostered by this bill benefit the economies of both the united states and israel and will create jobs and strengthen the already strong friendship between the united states and israel. madam speaker, i reserve the balance of my time. the speaker pro tempore: the gentleman from texas reserves. the gentleman from california is recognized. mr. berman: thank you very much, madam speaker, i rise in support of h.r. 3992, a bill that places israel on the list of countries eligible to receive e-2 treaty investor visas and yield myself touch time as i may consume. the speaker pro tempore: the gentleman is recognized. mr. berman: i thank commarme smith for his strong support in this bipartisan legislation and moving it quickly through the judiciary committee and to the floor. and i want to thank along with chairman smith, chairman gallegly and representative

lofgren and chairman ros-lehtinen for their support and authorship of this legislation. this legislation will encourage further investment by israeli business leaders in the united states and lead to the creation of more jobs for american workers. the scope of the legislation is narrow, but at a time when so many americans are looking for work and families are struggling to make ends meet, every little bit helps. israel is one of our closest allies and leading investor in the u.s. economy. h.r. 3992 will further strengthen the bonds between our two countries while helping to create u.s. jobs. there are many hundreds of israeli companies present in the united states and hundreds of u.s. companies doing business in israel. e-2 treaty investor visas will enable the countries to expand their bilateral investment flow.

currently there are over 75 countries whose nationals are eligible for e-2 treaty-investor visas and range from alban yeah to the united kingdom. this bill adds one country, which is already a significant business partner and contributor to our economic strength. we should be doing everything we can to bring additional israeli innovations and technologies to the united states. israel is an incubator of entrepreneurship, a leader in security and defense technologies, medicine, agriculture and clean energy. our country will benefit from their scientific advancements to our shores and spur investment and introduce new products to the u.s. market. a tel aviv biotechnology company developed a cell product to achieve a drastic reduction in mortality in patients with deep

wound infections. they invested in an f.d.a.-approved facility in the u.s. they need to temporarily transfer one of their executives to the united states to develop, direct and oversee local manufacturing to ensure a successful operation. an e-2 visa would facilitate this process and let similar entrepreneurs with the assurance that they will be able to monitor their investments. by passing this bill, they are close to expanding their business to our country and creating jobs for american workers. israel is a trusted friend and a special ally and this legislation expands business opportunities that will provide economic benefits for both countries. i urge my colleagues to support its passage and i ask unanimous

consent that the remarks of the ranking member of the immigration subcommittee, ms. lofgren, be included in the record. the speaker pro tempore: the gentleman's request will be covered by general leave. mr. berman: and then i reserve the balance of my time. i would be happy to yield to the ranking member of the judiciary committee. the speaker pro tempore: the gentleman from michigan is recognized for how much time? mr. berman: such time as he may consume. mr. conyers: i want to thank the gentleman for including my remarks on the record and i'm glad that we can make this change of bringing together these deserving countries, and i hope the bipartisan efforts coming from the committee on the judiciary from both chairman

smith and from senior member hourled berman, will be a foundation -- senior member, hourled berman will be a foundation to consider additional reforms that are desperately needed to help families and businesses this country. and i thank the gentleman for yielding. mr. berman: from your lips -- i thank you very much. and i reserve. the speaker pro tempore: the gentleman from california reserves. the gentleman from texas is recognized. mr. smith: we have no more speakers on this side and we are ready to yield back. if the gentleman from california doesn't have any other speakers either. mr. berman: madam speaker -- the speaker pro tempore: the gentleman yields back the balance of his time. the gentleman from california. mr. berman: parliamentary

inquiry, i would like to introduce the entire statement of ranking member conyers and representative lofgren in the record i'm unclear if i'm able to do this at this time. the speaker pro tempore: the comments are covered under general leave. mr. berman: i yield back. the speaker pro tempore: the question is, will the house suspend the rules and pass h.r. 3992. those in favor say aye. those opposed, no. in the opinion of the chair, 2/3 -- mr. smith: i request the yeas and nays on this bill. the speaker pro tempore: being in the affirmative, the rules are suspended. the yeas and nays are requested. all those in favor of taking this vote will rise and remain standing until counted. a sufficient number having arisen, the yeas and nays are ordered. pursuant to clause 8 of rule 20, further proceedings on this

question will be postponed. pursuant to clause 12-a of rule 1, the chair declares the house in recess until >> in march 1979, c-span about began televising the u.s. house of representatives nationwide and today our contents of public affairs, nonfiction books and american history is available on tv, radio and online. >> we've even had advice that we do not do as i did today and come in with a plain old white

shirt and a summer tie. heaven forbid. i don't know if my colleagues feel this would be a better decorum for the senate and i see the staffer here nodding no but perhaps the people of ohio would be glad to make a judgment on what they want to see me attired in here in the united states senate. so i am sure we won't do it here in the senate of the united states. >> an education conference called the grand nation summit. the event looks to address the high school dropout rate and prepare young people for college and the work force. next we hear from gene sperling, assistant to the president on economic policy.

his remarks are 15 minutes. >> i went to college in minnesota but i'm actually from ann arbor, michigan, that's my home. i'm a huge michigan fan and i'm still in my third day of mourning over the tragic loss to the university of ohio. nonetheless, i will pull myself up for these remarks today. i really do want to thank john bridgeland for his enormous commitment and what he's done through civic enterprises, part of the president's white house council for community conclusions. they are a personal example to the people in this town are committed to getting it done as opposed to which party is in power and who will get the credit and i thank him for that. and i thank for alma powell for

her now chairing america's promised alliance. it's so important this president stays. i remember its creation. i'm inspired today that it is still a force in public policy. and you obviously got to see our commitment in action and see arne duncan and all these done. so i thank them and i thank all of you. let me -- you're going to hear from a lot of people. i'm going to try to make five points quick and let you move on. number one, the focus on education and the challenge of preventing dropouts but beyond preventing dropouts, having higher aspirations, higher achievement, higher graduation rates, higher accomplishment is absolutely critical to our economy and our economic growth. now, there is a degree and with

that is just common sense. i'm just talking about the -- you know, the basketball playoffs. if you look at any team, any team is stronger, everybody is stronger when everyone on that team is at their highest performance and contributing. of course, if you have an economy where women are not contributing as much, are not allowed to contribute, are not allowed to rise, when you have an economy where some people are -- too many people are dropping out of high school, never getting the chance to get the skills to compete. that isn't just about the interest of those individuals, though that is crucial. it is about whether you have an economy that is at full strength. now, you've seen the studies. i won't go into all of them. you know them. you know that somebody graduating from high school is going to make twice as much over their lifetime as somebody

who drops out. you know that the unemployment rate for someone without a high school degree is about 13% today, but someone with college education, 4%. you know what that means to the individuals and their lives and we know what it means just to the cost of our society, that people who have significant education, make more, contribute more, pay higher taxes, cost taxpayers less funds. those of all things in which the academic evidence is overwhelming and undeniable. but what is most important to remember is that it benefits all of us. let me just give you one example. the president held a conference on insourcing the other day, and in the insourcing conference, a woman talked about what she advised when she

was telling people where to locate their companies, and she said one of the number one indicators was what was the high school completion rate in the area that you would locate that particular service business. the college colleagues rate was a key indicator in where they recommend somebody locate. . someone relocate. it is not just the individual to benefit, that community benefits. there will be more job opportunities for everyone. we need to make clear, when we are funding and inspiring higher academic progress, it is not just about those individuals. is about our economy as a whole. my second point is one that i

think all of you feel deeply. even if that were not the case, my guess is everyone who is here today would still be here today. we are fundamentally up people -- apeople -- a people who believe fundamentally that the accident of your birth should not be overly determinative of your life. [applause] we would not tolerate an law that says if you were born in a poor area to a single parent, only seven out of 100 audio can go to college. we would think that law was coral. -- was cruel. but how much better are we when we stand by and do nothing when that is the reality we live in?

we have an obligation, every generation does, to move ourselves closer to that aspiration that the accident of your birth does not determine the outcome of your life. when we know too many children, particularly to many children of color in poor, urban areas, poor rural areas just by the accident of their birth have the? -- have the decks overwhelmingly stacked against them, that is not something where we can say, ok, we will deal with that another day. the commitment has to be through the early stages through what arne duncan calls the bermuda triangle of education. the commitment has to be deep and strong and through that process that give someone an

opportunity the others of us are too likely born with to create economic security for families. the third point i want to make, i think one of the most critical things for us as a country in making progress as we established -- and that is what i believe you were trying to do here, that this commitment is something where there is an overwhelming consensus in our society to achieving. having been here for 20 years, i will be very honest in saying the following thing. i think there's a deep double standard when it comes to evaluating programs and policies for the poorest children. we do not find out that a particular intervention to cure cancer has failed and therefore decide, well, i guess that is an

argument for not investing in research to cure cancer. [applause] we do not decide that if a certain military weapon is not as effective as others that we give up on the basic security of our country where the basic goal of preventing terrorism. we find another way that is more effective. yet, when it comes to programs for helping our poorest children, if it is not 100% effective, people use that as an argument to give up on the endeavor, instead of going back at and trying again. , anytime -- how many times have i heard "here is an early intervention strategy." but you know why? some of the benefits and fade

out. i hear that and i think, ok, what can lead to to make sure that those benefits do not fade out? what can we make sure that those benefits accelerate and still -- instead of fadeout? other people will say, that is the reason why we should not do the thing that is working even for several years. that makes no sense to me. he is afraid it has a negative impact on public policy, because when people feel that the admission of any error or failure to get the performance desired is going to be used as the reason to defund the endeavor, people pullback. they are more afraid of evaluation, accountability. but if we are all committed to the idea is not right, it is not consistent with our values to let large numbers of our

children have the? stacked against them by the accident of their birth, then we will all be in this together. we will analyze and innovate. if something is not working well enough, we will double down on our commitment, not use it as an excuse to pull back. [applause] franklin roosevelt says "it is common sense to try a method. but above all, try something." that must be our motto. when we engage to make sure our children have higher aspirations in our economy. the fourth point i will make is we are in a tough budget time. this is the time of priorities. where are the priorities of the country going to pay? i am so proud to work for

president obama. user is so proud because every time we get to the toughest situations, the toughest budget fights, and the top priorities have to come into play, what the president puts first or at least at the top of his priority list is making sure we are staying with that commitment to invest and innovate in ways to help children who do not come from the best circumstances, have the same opportunities are greater opportunities to succeed. [applause] that is why even in this tough budget, over $1 billion more for headstart, and every budget, we fight and fight and will continue to fight to not let that it cut back so that tens of thousands of children, three, up four years old lose the chance they have to enter school ready to learn.

that is why when we can afford relatively few new programs, one of them is the early learning race to the top, so as we are funding what works, we're looking at what can work better, how we can innovate, what we can learn so we can do better and invest more in children. that is why amongst all the difficult budget challenges the president has stayed with his historic commitment to pell grants and has fought not only to have the largest increase, but to protect that increase budget after budget, in the toughest times among the toughest choices. those are priorities that should transcend political party and political position. that should be about our national commitment to being a people where every child as a chance to move up. not just in theory, but in fact and reality. last point i would just make --

we really, really as a country have to continue to focus and innovates and rededicate ourselves to ensuring we reach young people early enough to make sure they have the aspirations to seek to achieve as much as they can. college education, high school education. i think one of the things you realize as you get older is that you are born with many gets. 1 get many of us who were fortunate enough -- as fortunate as us realize later -- just by our upbringing, by the accident of our birth, we have to get. and that it is a very high expectation that we will go to college. i have watched friends and relatives. i have seen how children have

gone off, look in the wrong path, going off. but that high expectation they are almost born with is like a magnet that pulls them back on the bright track. so many of them, so many children of upper-middle-class families, whatever their problems, come back because of that expectation, because of the opportunity. so many other children are born without that get to. that is a gift we all can play a role with. that is a gift you can aspire and achieve. would have to keep looking. we have to protect and invest in programs like trio and career academies, things that reach people as early as possible at middle school, to provide that aspiration, that expectation

that so many of us are blessed with. that is not an expectation that will be there in a family were no one has ever gone to college, but we have that problem, we have that problem for the excellent teachers who inspire, the excellent after-school programs -- not just a particular moment or a particular course or particular score card, but what they can be. colleges can influence early in the neighborhoods where they exist. helping the children come to their campus. see what is possible. have a mentor. have someone who believes in them. change not just their test score or their great, but their expectations for what they can and should achieve. all of us, all of us have an

obligation to make sure every child has that gift. we play a role. we have a responsibility. i think that is what's brings -- i think that is what brings everybody else together. i also think there is nothing more important in terms of our values of who we are and what we believe in. thank you very much. >> now more from the america's promise alliance organization conference. the group also word from randall stevenson, the at&t chairman and ceo. this portion of his remarks are just over five minutes. >> good morning. it is good to be here. actually, it is an honor to be here. you are an inspiration to those of us involved in this cause. i also want to recognize ken

smith. it was good seeing you. america is promisedja andg -- america's promise and jag do some great work. the young people you saw in this video -- and there are a lot of them might get, but it is great having the kids from blue high school here with me this morning pupate -- here with me this morning. stand-up. please, stand up. [applause] i had an opportunity this morning to meet with all these kids. you notice some of those bases were the same faces you saw on the screen. -- some of those faces for the

same faces you saw on the screen. that is what i am talking about, right? congratulations to you guys. i have no doubt you guys are going to be successful in whatever you pursue. what we have achieved says a lot. is as a lot about these kids, the character they have, the drive that they have. it says just as much about the teachers and the administrators that they are driving these kinds of programs inside their school. over the past couple of years, almost 100% of students have graduated. did you hear that? [applause] i think that is an incredible achievement and that is an area where we are really proud at at&t to be a part of. i get questions like what is a company like yours involved in

programs like this one? the answer is really simple. our economy, it gets more and more global. skilled labor pools, whether we like it or not, are becoming fungible. which means economic opportunity is flowing to those markets that have the best prepared talent. educated, highly skilled work force has historically been america's greatest advantage when you look around the globe. as we move into the future, that advantage is going to be even more important. i am please we are making progress. like jobs for americans graduates, america's promise the day -- america's promise. we're going to have more adults in the area with skills they need to succeed.

the economic center of gravity will shift to where those labor pools or reside. i believe is in corporate america's best interests, also are nation's interest to see that up high-school graduation. it here, we launched a program called at&t aspire with this purpose behind it. many of you are familiar with that. it was concentrated on course readiness and high-school graduation. i am please to say we exceeded our $100 million target. our objective was to touch 100,000 kids with job shadowing programs. today, we announced we are launching a new and expanded campaign called at&t aspire 2.

that $100 million target and we are more than doubling its. we're making a $250,000 -- $250 million commitment. [applause] the first $1 million is going to america's promise and to their work with grad nation. [applause] we like to invest in proven success and this is an area that is having proven success. we are going to launch an aspire mentoring academy. the objective is to take our job shadowing effort to the next level as well. one of the most important things we want to accomplish as we move into aspire 2 is to meet the educational needs, to help students connect to social media and web-based contactscon --

tent. -- content. we're looking forward to working with them. when i look across this room, what is really impressive is everyone here is focused on the same thing, making dramatic improvement in america's high school graduation rates. i know you agree with me. we do not have a choice. we have to win this race. the u.s. is home to the world's most vibrant and innovative company in the world, bar none. in addition to our efforts, there are a lot of companies that have gotten into these efforts. i encourage everyone to get involved in this. this is a race we have to win. all these actions add up.

bay do count. thank you for inviting me to be here as part of this great summit. i thank you up for everything you're doing. i will say it again -- this matters. i hope you have a great summit. thank you so much. ♪ >> in his 2013 federal budget, president obama requested $6.1 billion for the federal emergency management administration. next, a discussion on the funds set aside by fema for disasters and emergencies. this is 40 minutes. host: every week we focus on the

"your money segment." our guest is princess mccarthy with the congressional research service. what went into the creation of the fema disaster relief program? guest: it began in 1974 with the disaster relief task. emphasize the disaster refund is an account with andy -- within the dhhs budget. the appropriations committee is the committee that funds it every year. when they set it up, they realized disasters can occur at any time. the disasters also have a long life.

the first six weeks of a disaster, there is a lot of repair work, so this is a familiar find -- fund. they are also hoping to budgeted in for when the next disaster occurs. host: let's look at the money. request for 2013 is $6.1 billion. 2012 have a budget of $7.1 billion. the prior fiscal year, a budget of $2.5 billion. you are seeing a difference in monetary numbers. why? guest: when you see the $2.5 billion figure, that is a rolling average of how much we

are spending. they are not putting out liars' light big events. but these are the regular disasters that occur. much of this goes into how much the administration wants to tie up regarding disasters that may or may not occur. what you could budget the amount, that could be any amount. they want to have the amount of money immediately, and after that to add the rest of the money that might be necessary. might example here would be the ruling -- the rolling average -- what is interesting is congress

is making a real attempt to not only put in $2.5 billion and say we are going to get six months. what they are doing is trying to catch up from all lot of old costs that may be were not anticipated. for example, you can have cost such as work in katrina where we knew that was going to be expensive. but then, you may remember a year or two ago, there was concern about the decisions on the larger infrastructure projects, etc., and congress put in place an arbitration system. and some of this arbitration cases, people won their cases, and fema is looking at a larger payout than they had before. sometimes, there are permanent advantages that are a certain

figure, and sometimes things end up spending -- costing more than anticipated. when the water goes down and the earthquake is over, sometimes the cost improves. their costs are raising behind the fund, and the $2.5 billion average me not reflect all of that. what we see is the administration trying to catch up and bring it back into balance. host: journal@c-span.org francis mccarthy works with the congressional research service. we are talking about fema and disaster relief. here are the numbers to call -- democrats, 202-737-0001. republicans come 202-737-0002. independent callers, 202-628- 0205. john in virginia, a republican. caller: hi. i had a comment and a question.

i have been doing research on some previous disasters and how they were handled by fema. i have learned a lot. the comment is, is you don't hear about everything that happens during these disasters in the media. i found out about it on inforwars.com. my question is, our troops during disasters -- are they going to be part of the fema budget? can you speak to the troop issue? host: why were you so interested in this issue? did you have a natural disaster or something that caused you to

look into this? caller: i started questioning the way that the federal government is handling a lot of things. i moved away from traditional media and started looking at alternative media. it is amazing what i have learned that you did not learn on traditional media. host: let's get a comment from our guest. guest: i am not aware of any troops being used. i'm not aware of troops being used. occasionally, they will ask for some of their resources, for very large events. i am not aware of troops being used. the troops that are used in disaster situations are went governor's activate their own national guard and they performed valiantly in the early days of the disasters. in some cases, the national guard -- i am not aware of any plans to use troops in a disasters.

fema does have committee relations that they call up to go from house to house to explain how the programs work and how the eligibility works on programs. i'm not aware of using troops in disasters. host: talk about disaster aid and emergencies. guest: under the president's declaration of party, there are -- declaration authority, there are party, two categories. helping states with evacuation costs. emergencies are intended to perhaps prevent the disaster from occurring. they are smaller and not contain the same programs. a major disaster is declared and has greater authority and

has more eligible costs covered to reimburse state and local governments. kind of two types of decoration and it does get confusing. before a governor will request, he will declare a state of the emergency in their state as a preamble to requesting federal assistance. host: a democratic caller from florida. caller: good morning. eventually it will have to balance the budget. when i put every dollar spent on fema put on line for us to see how it is spend. -- where the money is spent? guest: some of that is available on fema.gov. if you go to fema.gov, keep

clicking on disaster operations. if you go to fema.gov, keep clicking on disaster operations. there's a box on the side where you can click on and find out the amount that has been spent on individual assistance and public assistance, which is the repair the goes on. a lot of the information is there. some time to to not ever get it in a way for people to understand it right away or it may take some looking to find all of it. the amounts are listed in the budget and the appropriations bill. you'll be able to find a lot about spending on each individual disaster on fema.gov. host: our guest serves as a policy analyst.

he did have a 25-year career at fema. blair from michigan. are you still with us? josh from illinois. caller: hi. i was calling earlier in regards to a comment that john made from virginia. a comment on the actual military going in in times of emergency. i had a buddy who was driving a truck for walmart and he did bring water and supplies to the superdome. he got there and he was turned around by several military personnel trying to cross the bridge into town.

host: what does the story tell you? caller: i'm worried about giving more money to fema. that's kind of scary. i do not know what the money is going. host: josh brings up the idea about who is in control and about accountability and chain of command. guest: i think that is a true story because some of that did occur. army advisers that were in charge and i have for stories about trucks being turned away or people being turned away. in part that was people trying to take control of the situation. it is difficult when everybody decides to show up at the same time to offer help or to bring

in different types of material that is already there. the case of louisiana is different than anything we can think of in the past 30 years in terms of the amount of devastation and the amount of this organization in their response. i do not think that is representative of how things are usually handled. there is legislation introduced since that time to ensure that there will be access by everybody that needs to get it to a disaster area, to be able to deliver help and to make sure that communications are intact. host: take us to the process. a tornado comes to your town and devastates the area. guest: it begins with some type of a huge event such as a

tornado. you have the first line of defense, the local government, to see how much assistance they can provide. then the state comes in. there are state emergency management agencies in each state to up families and individuals and to do repair. there is the judgment by the state in which they think to themselves that this is something they can handle their cells or beyond our capacity to help -- they can handle themselves. a preliminary damage assessment. a couple of fema representatives and state and local people go out and look to the damage together. we used to get separate reports from the federal folks, stay focused and non-profit folks.

now this is a consensus among the federal, state, and folks as to the amount of damage. they look at how many houses have been affected and how many roads have been damaged, public buildings. what kind of public services may be stopped. they filed that report. they present their report to the governor. that helps the covert to decide whether to ask for federal help. if you decide to do that, he will send his request to the president -- if he decides to do that. it goes up to fema headquarters which then makes a recommendation to the president. the request could be turned

down if it is not at that level to warrant more help, or it will be declared a disaster and they will contact the governor. if families are being aided, the 1-800 phone number will be turned on. host: we have a question on twitter. when does fema make loans versus outright payments? guest: unlike some of the threats come up with an oil

spill, congress had passed legislation that covered it. there was already a fund that have been created in response to oil spills. you have the coast guard that was ready to go and the funding was available. disaster relief fund was not tapped for that. there was some controversy on that. some thought in may been helpful to the states to get funding to them quicker. it was not used because there was legislation passed by congress to relate to that. almost all of what fema does it take the form of grants. the grants are cost shared. it is usually 75% federal and 25% state and local. the loan can go to that

committee to keep local services going. the other major loan program -- most of us associate sba with small businesses. homeowners can receive disaster loans. if fema does not declare a disaster or the president does not declare a disaster oftentimes the minister will declare and loans will be available to repair their homes. host: john is a republican caller in maryland. caller: i have about 25 ideas for fema. i have seen all these different contracts that were awarded.

i thought, oh, my goodness. i have about 25 different ideas for fema. i have been trying to get through. i have not had too much success to get these ideas through fema. i see mr. fugate is in charge of fema. how can i get in touch with him? host: give us one or two of your ideas. caller: different color-coded signs. that would be specified with hospitals, police, fire departments, which roads are good roads to go, which roads

are bad roads to go through. it could be changed and switched over accordingly. that's one of the ideas i had. i have some many ideas. host: thank you for sharing them. guest: that does sound like an interesting idea. host: he is talking about color coded arrows to figure out the best way to go to a hospital or in case of an emergency. guest: that is another example of an agency that has its own emergency program. fema does not repair federal highways. i will mention this, john. on the fema website, they have a suggestion system.

i'm not sure if they are called a fema think tank. you send in your suggestions. fema and other people in the community will comment on them and they vote on some of them. some ideas get a few yes votes. other suggestions may be made to refine the idea. you can check with fema. they have set up the system within the last year. it gets the idea out there in the public with a chance for comment and with the chance for acceptance. once something is out there, the odds for getting a more positive reception are there. host: francis mccarthy spent 25

years working with fema. he also worked in and led the disaster declarations unit. he did congressional and legislative affairs. we are talking about your money, how taxpayer dollars are spent and we are focusing on fema's disaster relief fund. we have a comment on twitter. who calls the shots? guest: fema doesn't takeover. what fema does after a declaration is they signed an agreement with the state. the coordinating officer for

fema and the officer for the state will be making judgments in tandem and they will be looking at the applications that come in, what areas need special attention, etc. i understand your question about who is really in charge. fema doesn't supersede local laws. there is no martial law imposed. it is a partnership between fema and the state about the recovery. you can get people back to work. fema tries to spend the money locally. for people offering to send things into a disaster area, one of the preferences is that

the material the purchased locally to get that devastated economy back up on its feet. overall it is a partnership to the federal and state governments. the people in charge are the people in charge. fema has a field office that is bringing the federal family in and trying to orchestrate the help that is needed. when that is done, they leave and the people in charge are still in charge. host: sheila is a democrat in virginia. caller: hi. host: go ahead. caller: as far as fema, i am concerned about when the funds come to fema/ how you doing/

host: please turn down your tv. caller: i'm concerned like when the funds come into fema. they receive funds and signed papers and stuff. they took the people through a lot of problems. at the same time, when they have the 18-month process and provided the money, then some people, they got what they needed and then some still did not get their homes built. i know for a fact was one of my family members. up to this day, that person has been out of her home. i started an investigation about it, but nobody really gave me any answers of what happened

with his funds and stuff like that. host: we are sorry to hear about what your relative is facing. talk to us about her concerns. personal aide and community aid. guest: i think we'll look at disaster aid and occasion it will be portrayed as people doing quite well based on the disaster and all the help that fema can give. the best protection against a flood is flood insurance and not assistance from fema. the best protection is insurance in general. fema helps about $30,000, and that includes rental assistance and it can pay for funeral assistance or emergency medical.

the total amount is $30,000 for a household. that only goes so far. i am familiar with hurricane floyd. huge amount of damage. at the time of hurricane floyd, the maximum amount of money that could be spent repairing a home was $5,000. after that, people have to go to sba for a loan. that was adjusted after hurricane katrina. now a larger amount can be spend, within the $30,000 range. that is a big help but it is not a panacea from bringing somebody back from a huge disaster. that's what their roles from

nonprofits and charities. as for public assistance, it is interesting -- that is the majority of the spending. that includes repairs to roads, bridges, public buildings, recreation services, rebuilding public schools that are damaged. that does not really have a cap on it. it can be eligible for disaster assistance. what may be held back is whether the state and local government can pay their 25% share of it. make sure what they are rebuilding is related to the disaster and not something that happened a few years before or

lack of maintenance for certain roads or ditches. there is a lot of bureaucracy involved. we want to make sure where being a good stewards of the taxpayers' dollars. host: what should somebody like sheila do it if they think a relative or if they themselves have not gone the money they thought they would get? guest: they can contact fema to get an explanation of what was provided. and also there is other assistance that is kind of a coalition of nonprofits and charitable groups and may be contacting your state emergency management office and also

finding out from them for any degree of help the might still be available. host: fred in connecticut. caller: good morning. you're the perfect person to speak to on this issue. i have done a lot of reading in the past and try to research this end i was going to call my congressman to try to get a printout of the information. if you try to research how long the united states has been in a declared state of emergency for one reason or another -- i don't mean declaring an emergency because of a storm. we have been for the most part in a continuous state of emergency for me there truman or roosevelt times. i have not been able to find out exactly when we were in a state

of emergency and giving all these extra constitutional powers to the executives or when we were not. seeing how you were in the congressional research department and u.s. that research -- you of that experience for many years. i would like you to shed some light on this fact. c-span is amazing. they cover the house from gavel- to-gavel. this was declared under clinton when somebody ready message from the president that said, we have a state of emergency because of panama. does the white house still have to re-notify congress periodically, or is that no longer the fact? guest: i am not the perfect person to enter this.

my area of expertise tends to be on the domestic declarations. i am familiar with some of what you're discuss it but i cannot help on that. host: we are talking about your money and looking at the funding for fema's disaster relief fund. let's talk about how fema determines states and communities getting disaster relief. here's a story -- host: this is a story from last week's.

who made the decisions? an explanation is needed for people that lost everything they own. guest: that is a wonderful question. lester was the biggest ever, 99 major disasters declared. there were also 14 disaster requests turned down last year. fema publishes what they're looking at -- how severe the damage is and considering whether it should be in the capacity of the states to respond. they look at the per capita amount of damage.

this is something that fema instituted back to the 1990's. they are looking at the broad amount of damage and wondering if this is an error that has absorbed a number of disasters. do they have insurance? the number of homeowner policies will cover tornadoes. they are looking to see if it is an elderly population. what kind of assistance is available from the state. as to who is making the decision -- the president receives the recommendation from fema. it is hard to know each decision along the way. they do not want to pass along all the deliberations that are done at each level before that decision is made.

this is something that happens from time to time. fema now prints this in all of their considerations. it means that people read those considerations and decide that, i think we have qualified. you have a situation with more transparency. "we deserve to get that disaster declaration because we think we checked each of the boxes and will qualify for it." that was at the urging of congress. congress felt there were too many decorations and we find ourselves in a situation where states feel entitled to a declaration when they looked at the factors and feel they have

met each of them. it is a backhanded compliment when local government can take care of their own right away. they are the first responders. after that, it is a judgment call as to whether the needs can be met by local and state governments. host: we have a comment on twitter by freelancer. that is her opinion. there is a piece recently in "the new york times." host: the state questions whether fema should have a role.

what if your mayor or governor does not think that fema should be called in but you do? guest: it is a partnership between fema and the state government. sometimes i hear from local governments and i tell them you need to go through the state. that is to fema is working with. i am from ohio. ohio does have a good emergency management agency. whether they are successful when they request or turn down and whether or not the governor decides a request is the advice they are receiving at the state level.

this has become a profession of folks that have learned it on the ground in disasters and the study did and no doubt much better at their jobs and i think the offer good jobs -- good advice to their governors about whether it is a disaster situation are something that might not meet the criteria that fema has set. the emergency management office probably felt capable of responding. there was more damage that's existed as you learn more about it and perhaps you feel you may qualify for disaster or you may not. in this case, they did not, apparently. host: an independent caller, good morning. caller: good morning. i have been volunteering all my life. i'm 60 years old.

18 years on the town council. last year our floods in northeast arkansas. we had a bad ice storm two years ago. we helped everybody when we were called. a good example because i think we're overloaded from the top to bottom. the mayors in the county judges -- my example is that in an ice storm, you get electricity back on. our chain saws and back hoes, we cleared the roads and we piled up down on the farmers' fields, with his permission, to burn it.

all the hoops we had to jump through to do it. then the ash, it had to be hauled to a landfill. fema should take the local and county's word for things instead of coming in with all the regulations. it may take a year and a half to get money. thank you. guest: that is a wonderful comment. folks got into what they believe is the right thing and they run into regulations. some of that is difficult

because of the way the law is written. you made a key point and that is fema does take a look at this stuff themselves. they want to be good stewards of the taxpayers' dollars. on the other hand, you sometimes feel you're doing double duty. take the word of state and locals, like the caller said. i do not know how much is affected in the policies. the director said that he wants to start doing that and he wants to start taking the word of the state and locals. let's take their work and go forward. host: francis mccarthy spent 25 years working at fema. we've been looking at fema's

disaster relief fund. that is offered today. for the house to return for votes on bills debated earlier. the measure would allow eligible israeli nationals to receive non-immigrant visas if u.s. nationals are eligible for similar status in israel. live coverage will get underway in just a moment. tomorrow on "washington journal ," executive director of the independent women's forum will talk about women's issues and the campaign of 2012. then, arturo vargas talking about voter turnout projections for latinos this coming fall. after that, caroline smith duvall will take a look at federal food safety programs and new proposals to overhaul the way the fda meets.

your e-mails and your phone calls, "washington journal," live each day, right here, 7:00 a.m. eastern on c-span. live coverage now of the u.s. house. committee on rules for filing under the rule. the speaker pro tempore: the clerk will report the title. the clerk: report to accompany house resolution 587, resolution providing for consideration of the bill h.r. 2087, to remove restrictions from a par sofle land in the district in virginia. the speaker pro tempore: referred to the house calendar and ordered printed. pursuant to clause 8 of rule 0, proceedings will resume on the mollings to suspend the rules previously postpone the unfinished business is the vote on the motion of the gentleman from texas, mr. smith, to suspend the rules and pass h.r. 3992. -- 3992, on which the yeas and nays were ordered. the clerk will report the title

of the bill. the clerk: union calendar number 282, h.r. 3992, a bill to allow otherwise eligible israeli nationals to receive nonimmigrant visas if similarly situated u.s. nationals are eligible for nonimmigrant status in israel. the speaker pro tempore: the question is, will the house suspend the rules and pass the bill? members will record their votes by electronic device. this is a 15-minute vote. [captioning made possible by the national captioning institute, inc., in cooperation with the united states house of representatives. any use of the closed-captioned coverage of the house proceedings for political or commercial purposes is expressly prohibited by the u.s. house of representatives.]

the speaker pro tempore: on this vote, the yeas are 371, the nays are zero. 2/3 being in the affirmative, the rules are suspended, the bill is passed and without objection, the motion to reconsider is laid on the table.

the speaker pro tempore: the house will be in order. the house will be in order. the house will be in order.

the speaker pro tempore: the house will be in order. members, please take your conversations to the back of the floor. the speaker pro tempore: the house will be in order. the chair lays before the house a communication.

the clerk: the honorable, the speaker, house of representatives, sir, i write to let you know i have submitted the attached letter to the governor of washington to tender my resignation for the united states house of representatives effective at 12 tife 01 a.m. eastern time on tuesday, march 20, 2012. it has been a high honor to serve in the people's house. i have hopes that in the years to come the house will serve to continue america's efforts to always be the arc of the moral universe towards justice. very truly yours, jay inslee, member of congress. the speaker pro tempore: for what purpose does the gentlelady from michigan rise? >> i ask unanimous consent that my name be removed as a co-sponsor on h.r. 2920. the speaker pro tempore: without objection. for what purpose does the gentleman from north carolina

rise? >> i would like tore request unanimous consent that i be removed as a co-sponsor from h.res. 229. the speaker pro tempore: without objection, so ordered. the house will be in order. the chair is prepared to entertain one-minute requests. for what purpose does the gentleman from michigan rise? mr. conyers: mr. speaker, i request unanimous consent to address the house for one minute. the speaker pro tempore: without objection. observation. the gentleman is recognized. mr. conyers: to my colleagues -- the speaker pro tempore: the house will be in order. mr. conyers: mr. speaker, even though he is very much alive, i

rise this evening to celebrate the inspired life and contributions of the reverend dr. charles adams, who, on april 30 of this year will be completing his teaching they harvard divinty school, where he has for years conducted these important courses that he has taught. earlier, he was the head of the largest naacp chapter in the nation, the detroit chapter. and he has inspired countless numbers of people on this planet to a greater -- and the

necessity to follow up with the work to produce the change, the compassion, that in some ways, sometimes large and other times small, can dispense hope in a community, a state, a nation and sometimes even a world. i ask consent to submit the remainder of my statement. the speaker pro tempore: without objection. mr. conyers: thank you. the speaker pro tempore: are there further one-minute requests? the gentleman from texas. >> permission to address the house for one minute. the speaker pro tempore: without objection. the gentleman is recognized. mr. poe: mr. speaker, it seems the administration may open up the emergency strategic petroleum reserves under the economic theory that more supply will lower the price of oil and gasoline. if the president's theory of supply is correct, then, why not allow more oil shale be in the west and why not say yes to more

oil and gas lease sales in the gulf of mexico. and why not say yes to the keystone pipeline and allow permitting process. if it wasn't for more production on nonpermitted land, the situation would be worse. the administration wants to save us from the high cost of gasoline by increasing supply. i agree. i have introduced legislation that would require the administration to do all of the above before it can tap into the s.p.r. let's increase our energy supply ve a relief at the pump. we don't need a temporary fix in supply, but a long-term energy supply solution. and that's just the way it is. the speaker pro tempore: jabt. are there any other one--- the gentleman yields back the balance of his time. are there any other one-minute requests? the gentleman is recognized. >> i would like to announce that

i'm going to co-sponsor h.r. 4169, the sudan security, peace and accountability act. i'm doing this, mr. i am doing this, mr. speaker, because it has been called to our attention that there are atrocities still taking place in sudan. people are suffering, people are dying, and there's a possibility of a humanitarian crisis developing. this bill will allow sanctions to be imposed. i would also like to thank mr. clooney, mr. george clooney, and his father, for calling these as to tri-s -- atrocities to our attention. i hope to say more about this in the days to come. thank you, mr. speaker, i yield back. the speaker pro tempore: the gentleman yields back. are there further one-minute requests? the gentleman from florida. >> i ask unanimous consent to address the house for one minute and revise and extend my remarks. the speaker pro tempore: the gentleman is recognized.

>> ahead of pope benedict xvi's visit to cuba next week, cuban authorities detained several members of the dissident group ladies in white over the weekend, including 36 on sunday morning as they attempted to attend mass. the ladies in white demonstrate peacefully in commiss economist ration with their loved ones who were jailed. they have recently been met with the beatings that have become synonymous with the castro try thai rants. coming on the eve of the pope's business, these are disgraceful. hopefully in his visit to cuba next month, pope benedict will meet with dissident leaders like the ladies in white and others who have publicly called on the pope to engage them. by doing so, he will be a voice to those who long for freedom and speak out in the face of

brutal repercussions and he will give hope to those who risk their lives so that one day cuba may be free. thank you, mr. speaker. the speaker pro tempore: the gentleman yields back. are there further one-minute requests? the gentlelady from texas. >> i thank the speaker. ms. jackson lee: how much longer can we continue to watch the blood shed and slauth for the syria? -- in syria without demanding the united nations' collaborative action, providing those rebels, along with states out of the arab league, the weapons that they need. we know that there is a hesitation to begin air attacks, but when you see the slaughter, the loss of life of women and children, it is outrageous. we learned today that russia joins the red cross in calling for a daily truce in syria for

humanitarian needs. that's not enough. and russia and china should stop their blocking of the united nations and security council from providing some aid to save the lives of innocent women and children. this is a humanitarian crisis and it calls for quick response. yes, the red cross and humanitarian aid should be allowed in, but we should provide for those who are trying to defend themselves against oppression the kind of support on the ground that's necessary. where's the arab league, where is the collaborative effort of the united nations, where is the outcry for the bloodshed in syria? i yield back. the speaker pro tempore: the gentlelady yields back. are there further one-minute requests? the gentleman from indiana. mr. burton: i ask unanimous con -- consent to address the house for one minute. the speaker pro tempore: the gentleman is recognized. mr. burton: i listened to my

good friend from texas, mr. poe, a moment ago, i wondered if the president is -- if he's in town and not out campaigning someplace, if he's paying attention. if i had a chance, i know i can't acrets the president from the well but if i could, i would say mr. president, the people of this country are hurting. inflation is taking off on all kinds of food products and anything else that's being transported by truck. and it's because of the energy costs, gasoline is at almost an all-time high and you, mr. president, should be paying attention to it. we ought to be drawing off the -- drilling off the continental shelf, in anwr and in the gulf of mexico and we ought to be fracking and using coal oil shale. but mr. president, you're not doing any of those things. and the people are suffering. stay home, pay attention, mr. president. it's your job. i yield back the balance of my time.

the speaker pro tempore: the gentleman yields back. are there further requests? the chair lays before the house the following personal request. the clerk: leaves of absence requested for mr. mathis of alabama for -- mr. bachus of alabama for today, mr. bishop for today, mrs. bono mack for today through march 21, mr. davis of illinois for today and tomorrow, mr. hinrich of new mexico for today, mr. honda of california for today, and mr. mario of pennsylvania for today. the speaker pro tempore: without objection, the requests are granted. under the speaker's announced policy of january 5, 2011, the gentlelady from the virgin islands, mrs. christensen, is recognized for 60 minutes as the designee of the minority leader. mrs. christensen thkspaung, mr. speaker. tonight --

mrs. christensen: thank you, mr. speaker. tonight the congressional black caucus thanks the democratic leader for allowing us to have this hour to talk about something very important. as we approach the second anniversary of the patient protection and affordable care act, a truly landmark law that is bringing about health reforms that are helping millions of americans save money and have healthier lives. we want to review those facts this evening, not the myths, not the misrepresentations about this great law, but the facts. there's so much being spread that's flat out wrong, wrong about the facts and wrong to tell our fellow americans that are just not true about this law. and so at this time, i'd like to begin yielding to some of my colleagues and i'll begin by yielding such time as she might consume to the gentlelady from cleveland, ohio, congresswoman marcia fudge. ms. fudge: thank you so much. i want to thank representative christensen for continuing to

host this hour. thank you very much for your leadership. mr. speaker, for far too long, hardworking americans have paid the price for policies that handed free rein to insurance companies and put barriers between patients and their doctors. we all want to be in charge of our own care and it's not too much to act. the affordable care act forces companies to be responsible, prohibiting them from tropping your coverage if you get sick or billing you into bankruptcy because of an annual or lifetime limit. for the first time under federal law, insurance companies are required to publicly justify their actions if they want to raise rates by 0% or more. the law also bans insurance companies from imposing lifetime dollar limits on benefits, freeing cancer patients and others suffering chronic diseases from corying about going without -- from

worrying about going without treatment. and the law ensures that everyone pays their fair share and has insurance. because when people without insurance get sick, the cost passes down to the rest of us. despite claims, you can keep the coverage you have if you want to. or you can pick an affordable insurance option to take responsibility for your health and your family's health. having everyone take responsibility for their own care started as a republican idea. but unfortunately, they've abandoned it in an effort to dishasn't p -- dismant they will new health care law. we know that the american people strongly support what the new health care law does. even though republican rhetoric has encouraged many not to support the law. when you ask about specific provisions, you get a much clearer picture. according to a poll done by the kaiser family foundation, 5% of people support the discount seniors will get in scription

dwrugs which has begun. 79% support subsidies to help low and moderate income people buy insurance which is scheduled to start in 2014. 7 % support tax credits to small businesses to offer coverage to workers, the credits are available starting this year. 71% of people support prohibiting insurance from -- insurers from denying coverage to people with pre-existing conditions, a provision that goes into effect in 2014. 66% support making insurers meet a threshold of spending on actual medical care as opposed to administrative costs and profit. this provision go into effect this year. 65% support the law's provision making some preventive care service fleece to medicare beneficiaries. it's now in effect. i won't keep going, but i could, mr. speaker. americans support the provisions of the affordable care act because it gives them

the reins. it gives them the ability to choose, not the insurance companies. americans overwhelmingly agree that the health care system we had before was broken. the affordable care act is already helping millions of americans as well as small businesses. 105 million americans have had the lifetime limit on their coverage eliminated. 17 million children who have pre-existing conditions can no longer be denied coverage by insurers. 2.5 million additional young adults have health insurance through their parents. 360,000 small employers use the small business health care tax credit to help them afford health insurance for two million workers in 2011. $.1 billion is the amount that seniors in the doughnut hole have already saved on scription drugs. that's an average of $604 per senior.

another fundamental element of the law is the forth it provides to community health centers. the affordable care act increases the funding available to 179 existing community health centers in ohio alone. health centers in ohio have received over $53 million in medically underserved areas and enable them to increase the number of patients served. the funds can be used to expand preventive and primary health care services and for so many ohioans, including my constituents, community health centers are absolutely vital. for many reasons this law will improve care and make americans more healthy. it helps us keep costs under control, encourages prenks and lets american things other than whether they will be able to get the type of care they need or go bankrupt. this bill saves lives. thank you, i yield back. mrs. christensen: thank you, congressman fudge. thank you for reminding us that

so many americans, once they know what's in the bill and what's being provided support the paint protection and affordable care act. thank you. i'd like to ask unanimous consent to insert into the record a statement from the honorable eddie bernice johnson of texas and to ask that all members may have five legislativities to revise and extend their remarks and add extraneous material on the subject of this special order, mr. speaker. the speaker pro tempore: without objection. the gentlelady's first request is covered by general leave. mrs. christensen: thank you. at this time, i yield such time as she might consume to the congresswoman, the gentlelady from texas, who often joins congresswoman fudge and myself on these special orders, congresswoman sheila jackson lee. ms. jackson lee: i thank the gentlelady for her kindness. as a member of the

congressional black caucus and the co-chair and founder of the congressional children's caucus and a member of the health care task force, it is now time to commemorate, even to celebrate two years of the affordable care act and particularly coming from an area that embraces the texas medical center, where so much research has benefited from the passage of the affordable care act and the added commitment to research for any number of diseases that we are still confronted with. so i am baffled by the opposition to this bill and the usage that it has seemingly come up -- come upon during the republican presidential debates. for in actuality if they would read the bill and look at its

basic premises, they would take up the cause of saying that it is an important, a very important element on making americans more healthy. and i thank the gentlelady for -- from the virgin islands for her leadership on health care issues and of course for leading this special order and as well chairman of the congressional black caucus for making sure that we are focused on how this impacts our community. children in particular won't lose their coverage because they were born with pre-existing conditions like asthma and american families are seeing how reform is saving lives and saving money. medicare is now stronger for seniors and women can now get life-saving mammograms at no extra cost. in eliminating racial and ethnic health disparities which we worked on continuously, and as a caucus, submitted this language to the affordable care act, we find that it would have

reduced direct medical care expenditures by $229.4 billion for the years 2003 to 2006. this bill was passed after that. and even though all the language that the c.b.c. wanted to include in that bill was not included, large steps were made in terms of the elements of that bill. this bill protects and provides the fact that if you have an illness that is crobic, you do not have -- chronic, you do not have lifetime caps. 86 million americans receive free preventative care. that means they got cancer screenings like mammograms and soon women can have their contraceptions covered without paying a co-pay or deductible. they are living healthier lives. it is evidenced, unfortunately, that years have shown that infant mortality rates of mothers age 20-plus by race, ethnicity and education make a difference.

in high school it is high in all populations, including white women. high school it was equally almost as high. 13.4 african-americans per 1,000 birds -- births, 9.2 for american indian per 1,000 births, 6.5 of white nonhispanic, 5.6 of asian-pacific islander and 5.3 for hispanic. it is shameful that we lose our newborns because of lack of health care and education. the affordable care act will change that. bazz they will create greater opportunity -- because they will create greater opportunity for access to health care. 180 million are now protected the against the worst insurance abuses like denying health care to the sick, excessive premium increases and lifetime caps and an additional 2.5 million young adults now have insurance, that's because the affordable care act allows families, parents, to keep their children on their insurance until age

26. i have personally spoken to families who have said, thank you, and lives have been saved. what is the affordable care act? it is saving lives. 47 million americans now benefit from a stronger medicare program, the solvency of the program has been ex tended by eight years and new prescription drug discounts have saved 3.6 million with medicare, an average of $600, and seniors understand that in years to come just a few years, the doughnut hole will be completely closed. the worst medicare reform we ever saw and it was not reform, it was actually a blight on medicare, to have something called the prescription drug part d, what a big fat doughnut hole, which most seniors fell in and almost drowned. thank goodness we're ending that aspect of it. but let me tell you why it's important to have the affordable care act. cominging from the state that i do, and having experienced this past week over the last 10 days, as we have been fighting this and its galvanizing, as planned parenthood is going

around the state of texas, and as we watch various state laws infringe upon women's health care and access to health care, if you can imagine a sonogram that forces a woman to look at a sonogram, along with her physician. this should be a prayerful and private moment where laws do not intrude on a private decision. or the law that says that you have to tell your employer what reason you're using contraception for. these are outrageous aspects. or planned parenthood affiliates that have nothing to do with abortion in the state of texas now are eliminated from receiving precious medicaid dollars, in the state of texas that has the highest number of uninsured, mostly among young women and single women with children, are denying them access to health

care because they are claiming that affiliates are performing abortions. they know that is not true. we're going to fight it, we're going to fight it and we're going to fight it. one of the reasons is because the affordable care act provides equal opportunity to access health care. it is shameful that the state of texas is turning away some 30 million -- $30 million to $40 million to help women have access to health care. it is shameful that they've already cut $ 76.9 million. so i want to thank representative turner, representive allen, representative affle radow, and a number of others, who recognize that the state should take a different position and are working with me to turn the clock forward and not backwards in terms of health care in the state of texas. we need all the help we can get and the affordable care act, a

reasoned response to good health care, is providing that legitimate law to say that all americans deserve access to good health care. for my district, it improves employer-based coverage for 279,000 residents. that is the 18th congressional district in the state of texas. provides credits to help pay for coverage for up to 186,000 households, improves medicare for 70,000 beneficiaries, seniors, including closing the prescription drug doughnut hole for 5,300 seniors, allows 6,600 small businesses to obtain affordable health care. if we say we care about small businesses, i hear that all the time, then why are you condemning the affordable care act that helps small businesses, provides tax credits to help reduce health care insurance for up to 14,600 small businesses in the 18th congressional district in texas? multiply that by 435 districts, there are millions of small businesses being helped. provide coverage for 180,000

uninsured resident, remember, i said texas is the state with the highest number of uninsured persons without health care. protects up to 500 families from bankruptcy due town affordable health care costs and when we were dealing with bankruptcy in the judiciary committee, one of the single most difficult elements of bankruptcy was catastrophic illnesses. better health care coverage for the uninsured, for the sured, approximately 41% of the district population, 279,000, will receive coverage from their employer. many other aspects of what this insurance reform, affordable care act, good health care does for americans. and so i am happy to celebrate the affordable care act because i believe that lies have been saved, children with diabetes, children with pre-existing diseases that would not have access health care, other than

the emergency room, now can get good coverage and good care. finally i would say something that we collectively supported that has been an asset. in my congressional district, a health clinic that received millions of dollars through the stimulus, pursuant to our commitment to community health clinics, now has 20 patient rooms, 20 patient rooms, increased jobs and providing good health care in that community. community health clinics have become first-line responders to providing access to all people. so i thank the gentlelady for allowing me to share these thoughts, but in particular i thank her for helping me acknowledge the fight we have in texas where women's access to health care foolishly has been denied and incorrectly i believe labeling planned parenthood as its affiliates in

particular the affiliates who have over the years, through the bush administration when president bush was in office, this bill was passed in the state of texas. but the affiliates were allowed to continue to give good health care and no question was ever raised that they were mixing federal dollars in their clinics that might have provided for abortions. it is against the law. why we are denying women in the state of texas their health care, their lifeline, baffles all of us. but we're going to fight to the end and look forward to working with health and human services to ensure that we can fight for good health care for all americans and the women of the state of texas. i yield back. i thank the gentlelady. mrs. christensen: thank you congresswoman, sheila jackson lee. and certainly we know that planned parenthood has always followed the law and in this women's history month, thank you for raising the issue of the unfairness -- unfair treatment of women.

by some of the laws like the one in texas, the one in virginia and also legislation that has been attempted to be passed in the congress of the united states. we're also joined this evening by a congressman from texas, congressman al green who often joins us here. we're representing all of the 43 members of the congressional black caucus who now how important this law is to our communities and really to communities across this country. so we thank you for joining us and i yield such time as he might consume. mr. green: thank you, dr. christensen. and i especially thank you for chairing the health care task force and for the outstanding job that you've done through the years. you have shown a great deal of dedication to health care for all, for all. and i believe that those who write history will be

exceedingly kind to you when they record how you fought so that every person could have health care as a matter of right, as opposed to as a matter of wealth. you have done your best to make sure health care doesn't become wealth care. i'd also like to thank my colleague, sheila jackson lee, who spoke just ahead of me and you, for the hard work that she is doing across the length and breadth of this country to help us with these issues concerning health care for all as well. the affordable care act is called the affordable care act for a reason. in 2009 when we were embarking upon this transformation in health care, we were spending about $2.5 trillion per year on health care. $2.5 trillion. $2.5 trillion is a huge number.

it is very difficult to grasp $2.5 trillion. $2.5 trillion is about $79,000 per second. that's what we were spending in 2009. that was 17.6% of g.d.p. $79,000-plus per second. and it was projected in 2009 that in 2018 we would be spending $4.4 trillion per second. big number, $4.4 trillion. how much is it really? that's $179,000 per second. which equates to about 20.3% of g.d.p. $179,000 per second. we needed the affordable care act. and the state of texas, we're spending huge amounts of money

because we had six million people who were uninsured. $1.1 million in my county, harris county, uninsured. 20% of the state's children were uninsured. 2009, we needed the affordable care act. there is a reason why it's called the affordable care act. because upon passing it it's projected still that it will, and this is per c.b.o., that it will save $1 trillion-plus over a 20-year period. this bill, this legislation reduces the cost of care. and it was something that had to be done. but quaily as important as reducing the cost of -- but equally as important as reducing the cost of care, it spreppeds health care -- spreads health care. about 50 million people but who

for this bill would not receive some health care. i do believe that it's important that we not have 45,000 people per year die because they don't have insurance. that's a lot of folks to lose their lives. we were losing about one person every 12 minutes, i believe. this is an important piece of legislation to save lives. it saves money. but equally as important as saving money, in my world, more important is the fact that it saves lives. it saves the lives of children. it will cause children to have the opportunity to stay on the insurance of their parents until they are 26 years of age. it closes the doughnut hole for senior citizens, with their pharmaceuticals. we had a system that allowed you to pay a co-pay and a premium up to a certain point and then you had to pay all of the costs of your health care and then at another point you

would again receive some additional assistance. this bill closes that doughnut hole for those who are in the twilight of life. when you need pharmaceuticals the most. and by the way, the insurance companies were not eager to take on persons in the twilight of life, when there is much to be spent on health care. they don't go out looking for people to insure in the twilight of life. this bill covers people to make sure they get pharmaceuticals in the twilight of life. . this is discrimination against women who get the same coverage men get but pay more because of their gender. there really is a gender bias in the insurance industry. and women pay more for similar coverage.

this bill ends that. women ought not be required to pay more because they are women. this bill ends it. it also helps us with personals in need of prevent i care and at some point in life, we all need preventive care. theoretically, i suppose it helps everyone. preventive care is very important. preventive care can hold down the cost of health care. if you can treat and prevent an illness, you don't pay that inordinate amount of money you have to pay once the person has the illness and has to receive medical attention. one such area of preventive care has to do with contraception. and this is an adult conversation. and i want adults to know that men can receive their contraceptives in their neighborhood. bus stops, truck stops, they

can receive contraceptives -- it is easy for men to acquire contraceptives. if men can get them in their neighborhood, women should be able to get them at planned parenthood. there is no reason why men should have easy access and women be denied access. these are matters for families to consider and individuals to make choices about. and i think that women ought to be able to make the same choices that men can make when it comes to contraception. i would add as i close that this bill is going to make a difference in the lives of a lot of people and what i regret is that many people really don't understand the positive impact it will have on them. and it's very unfortunately, was there are in people who will benefit from this bill but

who do not understand how it will have a positive impact on their lives. it is unfortunate that we sometimes don't know as much about a thing as we should so that ke -- so that we can speak about it in terms of knowledge that we have as opposed to what we have heard. read the affordable care act, look at the summaries of it, but no one denies, no one denies that it allows you to keep your child on your health insurance until your child is 26 years of age. no one denies that it is closing the doughnut hole for senior citizens as it relates to their pharmaceuticals. no one denies it will allow preventive care to take place such that people can receive treatment that will prevent them from having to go to the hospital. to give them an opportunity to

remain healthy and not have to treat an unhealthy person. no one denies that it will help keep people out of the emergency room. we were spending $100 billion per year in emergency rooms in 2009. people were going to emergency rooms for their pharmaceuticals and their treatments that they could receive at a general practitioner's office. this bill would end this. this is a good piece of legislation that will help people in the dawn of life, when they are born with pre-existing conditions, in the twilight of life, when they are in need of smerble attention and treatment that the wealthy can now afford. i do believe that in this country, if we find you to be an enemy combatant and if we

should mortally wound you in the process of taking you into custody, if we should wound you, perhaps not kill you, but if we wound you, when we do capture you, we don't mortally wound you, if we don't kill you, we will give you aid and comfort. we give aid and comfort to our enemy combatants, people who are trying to kill us. we will give them aid and comfort if we wound them in battle. in this country if you are a bank robber and if on the way out of the bank, we should harm you, physically, when we capture you, we will give you aid and comfort. in this country, we give aid and comfort to criminals. in this country, if you are on death row, and you are on your way to meet your maker next week, if you get sick this week, we will give you aid and comfort and send you to meet your maker next week. if we can give aid and comfort to the enemy combatants, if we

can give aid and comfort to the criminals, if with can give aid and comfort to the person who is on death row, who is going to die next week, surely we can give aid and comfort to hardworking american citizens who cannot afford health care but for the affordable care act. which by the way mandates that every person who can afford health care, acquire health care. it does not require people to buy health care who cannot afford health care. this is the richest country in the world. one out of every 100 persons is a millionaire. in spite of all that you hear, we still have. -- we still are. and in this, the rich -- richest country in the world, we cannot allow health care to become wealth care. i thank you for yielding the time and i gladly yield back to you. mrs. christensen: thank you. and thank you for making those

points and making them so passionately. i know you said we would save $1 trillion other the next 20 years but i am confident that the savings will be more than that when we look back on the good that this bill is going to be doing over those 0 years. i want to say a few words about the bill. some of it will be repetitive. but for the first time, the patient protection and affordable care act is finally making a significant investment in prevention. wore finally beginning to turn what is supposed to be a health care system into a real health care system, not a sick care system. the old adage, a pound of prevention -- an ounce of prevention is worth a pound of cure, is still true. no more true than in health care. in my family practice, i would see patients who had difficulty getting the preventionive care, getting their mammograms, the colonoscopy and other

preventive services. that would no longer be true. so they would come in sicker. some patients would come to me after being sick for a long, long time, when they had far advanced disease. so i know that that is the same, not only in my district and my practice, but 2st the same for many low and middle income people everywhere in this country. but especially for african-americans, other people of color, of course the poor and people who live in rural america. but let's talk about african-americans and preventive care. 20% of african-american women are not up to date on their pap smear. 32% of african-american women are not up to date on their mammograms. and 45% of african-americans have never had a colon cancer screening. the affordable care act, the patient protection and affordable care act, takes important steps to reverse this trend and make sure that all americans can afford the preventive care they need. this will reduce the premature deaths.

it is said that in this country every year, an -- about 88,000 or more people die in excess numbers that should not have died if they had received the preventive care and kind of health maintenance we want them to have and this legislation will allow them to finally have. today, the life expectancy for african-american men is seven years shorter and for women five years shorter than our white counterparts. there's an article, i was read oned meline plus, overall the national life expectancy was nearly 75 for men, 6 -- -- for white men, 68 for black men, 80 for white women and 75 for black women. washington, d.c. has the largest life expectancy disparities between blacks and whites. 13.8 years disparity for men and 18.3 years for women. let me mention some states with

the largest dispairties, more a -- more than eight years for min, new jersey, nebraska, wisconsin, michigan, pennsylvania and illinois. and the ones with the largest disparities for women, more than six years, illinois, rhode island, kansas, michigan, new jersey, wisconsin, minnesota, iowa, florida and nebraska. surely all americans, but african-americans in particular have a serious stake in the patient protection and apossible -- affordable care act. it's clear our lives depend on it, but not our lives aloan. it will also, as has been said, reduce health care cost. the joint center for political and economic studies reported about two years ago that the direct and indirect cost of health disparities in this country over just a four-year p period was 1.2 -- was $1. trillion and we could save that money just by reducing health disparities in this country. of course now 26-year-olds can

say is -- can stay on their parent's health insurance for the first time. i remember when my daughter turn 2d2 and i had to drop her from my insurance coverage, the coverage i had here in the house of representatives. but now, 2.2 million young people, of which 400,000 are african-americans, are being covered on their parents' insurance. 17 million children can no longer be denied because they have a pre-existing disease, just because they're sick. children with asthma, children with sickle cell disease, and the children who are increasingly having diabetes. they can no longer be denied health coverage. they have access to health care. in 2014, that will be extended to adults who also will not be able to be denied health insurance because of pre-existing diseases. and there are up to 129 million americans under the age of 65 that have a health condition that could make it hard for them to find health insurance.

going back to african-americans again who suffer disproportionately from multiple chronic diseases, we need this benefit. deaths from cardiovascular diseases were 30% high for the african-americans. the prevalence of diabetes is 70% higher. it's also very high in the american indian population. african-americans represented about 55% of all adult aids cases and 65% of pediatric cases and our infant mortality is more than 2.3 times higher than our white counterparts. as you heard from congressman green, being a woman will no longer be a pre-existing disease. it's amazing, being a woman is almost like having a pre-existing disease. they don't deny us the insurance but they charge more. and there's another article from "the new york times" that is written by robert pierce, i'm reading from it now, it says for a popular plan in chicago a 30-year-old woman pays $375 a month which is 31%

more than what a man of the same age pays for the same coverage. in the states that have not banned gender rating, and i think there are about 28 or so that have, 26 or so that have but in the states that have not banned gender rating, more than 90% of the best-selling health plans, 90%, charge women more than men. so many testimonies of people we heard from while we were having the hearings in preparation for developing this bill, of people who lost their coverage because they had a serious illness. i remember one lady with breast cancer they dropped her coverage. i remember a young girl who had had a liver ailment in her infancy and she could not get coverage. her parents almost had to sell their home and become destitute to provide coverage for her. but that would not happen now under this patient protection and affordable care act.

you can't have benefits cut because of lifetime littles anymore. before the law, 105 million americans had lifetime caps. -- caps on their care, include 10g.4 million african-americans. who wants to go back to those days again? no one wants to go back to those days. we're not going back. there can be no scrimping on our care to give bonuses to c.e.o.'s or for fancy ads. at least 08% of premiums must be used to provide health care services. before the health care law, some insurance companies spent as much as 40% of premiums on administrative overhead like marketing and c.e.o. bonuses. now that cannot be any more than 20%. i have a pet peeve about medicare because i keep hearing, especially my republican colleagues, saying that democrats have cut $500 billion out of medicare. that's not exactly what happened. i think the american people

understand savings. we found savings. $500 billion worth of savings. and we used it to make -- most of it to make medicare stronger. i'll go to some of the facts here. it reduces the scription drug costs for seniors, health care law provided a 50% discount on brand anymore -- brand name drugs for seniors in the medicare part d doughnut hole. 6.3 million seniors have already received that discount, saving a total of $2.1 billion, each senior saving an average of $6.4 million. they've already it provides a free annual wellness visit. it strengthens medicare by providing those savings and putting them back into medicare, restrengthen medicare and extended its solvency by

eight years, from 2016 to 2024. we have more work to do but we extended it by eight years. and it helps seniors remain at home and stay out of nursing homes and provides nursing home residents with more protections from abuse. the average premiums for medicare advantage and relief are 7% lower in twelve than they were last year. and since the health care law was enacted, those premiums have fallen by 16%. the medicare part d deductible has fallen by $22 in 2012. the first time in medicare history that the deductible has fallen. so we didn't hurt medicare, we did not take money out of medicare, we found savings in medicare, mostly from fraud and abuse, and also from leveling the reimbursement to providers so that the medicare advantage, they might have that much more reimbursement than other providers and we made medicare

stronger. so today 47 million americans are benefiting from a stronger medicare program. we put medicare on a stronger, more secure course and we're not going back and we're not going to vouchers where the beneficiary will take on a lot more of the costs. we will not break our commitment to seniors and people with disabilities. small businesses also. we've heard that they've done well. 360,000 small businesses use tax credits and cover two million employees in 2011 and i know those two million employees and the people that employ them don't want to lose that coverage. we don't want to go back. we will oppose any attempt to take us back to the days when we could not provide help for our small businesses to provide insurance for their employees. as was said earlier, health care is a right and president obama led and we worked with him to ensure that that right is there for every american.

we also work very hard, the tricaucus did, the black, asian and pacific -- black, his packic and -- hispanic and asian american caucus. discrimination is expressly prohibited. there are core objectives within it to reduce health disparities and to create health equity. there's data collection. you don't know what you don't know that you don't know. there are health professions provisions to increase not only the overall health care work force but to make sure that that work force looks like america. that there's diversity in that work force. and to support institutions that train under-represented minorities. we created office of minority health and some agencies of the health and human services that that did not have them rges such as sampson, the substance abuse and mental health agency administration.

we know that mental health issues often go undiagnosed or undiagnosed or misdiagnosed in people of color or people of different racial and ethnic backgrounds. we need an office of minority health there. we needed one at f.d.a., to make sure that when medicines are approved, that they have been tested in minorities and people with disabilities and others and i have had bad experiences with c.m.s. asking about the impact of changes in medication and stage recental disease where we know african-americans and some other subpopulations require more of a certain medication. after a few years, what was the impact on these populations? we don't take -- we don't collect data that we way. we can't know what we're doing wrong or where we might have to change things to improve people's health. i represent a territory. although the territories did not get statelike treatment under this bill, we are finally able, we will finally be able to cover close to 100% of the

federal poverty level in our territories, under medicaid. finally we'll have the opportunity to have an exchange . in our case we may only cover up to 200% of poverty. but it will -- but we're making steps and this bill has allowed to us make telephones -- steps that will allow us to transform our health care system and open up access to care, to our constituents that they've never had before. this is in the united states virgin islands, in guam, american samoa, the commonwealth of the northern marans a -- marianas and puerto rico. we have a lot more to do but we made a good start with the affordable care act and we'll continue to work until all americans, no matter where they live in this country, have equal access to health care. and the rising costs of health care are already slowing. the best is really yet to come. in 2014 the exchanges will help to pay premiums for families that are at or below 400% of the federal poverty level.

small businesses will get even more help in the form of tax credits. there will be no denial for anyone because of pre-existing disease. the doughnut hole will begin to be closed. the research that this bill creates will improve the quality of health care and make us safer. and the skyrocketing health care costs increases will stop. they'll start going down. and i know that there's some in this country that feel that all of this, that we talk about in this bill, threatens the health care that they already have. but it doesn't. it does not. it makes health -- the health care coverage that you already have more secure. it cannot be taken away just because you're sick. there will be no lifetime limits or annual caps and the increases in premiums are already beginning to level off so insurance is already becoming more affordable. the american people ought to be thanking president obama and i know that many do. more than 80% support the provisions of this bill.

thanking the president for this landmark law. as important as the one that created medicare. and we ought to feel good about the fact that this country is living up to the high ideals on which it was founded and that we will no longer be shamefully lagging behind so many countries in the health of our population. not in the richest country in the world. i am certain that if the supreme court decides on law and the constitution without any political activism coming into play, as they should, this good law will prevail and more importantly the people in our nation will prevail and with that, mr. speaker, i yield back the balance of my time. the speaker pro tempore: the gentlelady yields back. under the speaker's announced policy of january 5, 2011, the gentleman from arkansas, mr. griffin, is recognized for 60 minutes as the designee of the majority leader. mr. griffin: thank you, mr. speaker. i ask unanimous consent to revise and extend my remarks. the speaker pro tempore: without objection, so ordered.

mr. griffin: mr. speaker, i've come here to the floor tonight with my colleague, representative duffy, to talk about the crisis facing medicare. and to talk about the independent payment advisory board. some call it the ipab. it's a part of the president's health care law and this house is going to address it this week. but i want to start out by talking a little bit about the crisis that we're facing in this country over medicare and what it means to our seniors. my mother is 71 and she's a medicare recipient. she counts on medicare. she paid into it and is now using it to take care of herself and we've got to make sure that future generations are able to rely on, count on medicare. so i want to start out this first chart here, mr. speaker,

it shows what a significant portion of the federal budget, medicare consumes -- budget medicare consumes. we have it here, $555 billion. and that is per year. this is a yearly budget for the federal government. it is widely agreed upon by democrats and republicans that medicare is going bankrupt. some estimate it seven years, eight years, 10 years. but most everyone agrees, having looked at the numbers, that medicare is going bankrupt. now, i've got a quote here from senator lieberman who addresses a criticism that we hear a lot about the republican reform plan. on medicare. we can agree that medicare is going bankrupt, we then have to

ask ourselves, what are we going to do about is it ? what are we doing about it? well, the house has acted to reform medicare. we acted last year in 2011 as part of our budget to reform medicare to save it. the only reason we proposed reforms to medicare is because we want to save it. we want it to be there for the next generation. i've heard a lot of criticism of, you want to change medicare as we know it. i say, no. medicare as we know it goes bankrupt. on its own. we have to act to save medicare, mr. speaker. and in this quote that senator lieberman, he says, quote, the truth is that we cannot save medicare as we know it. we can save medicare only if we change it. now, like house republicans, i think it's fair to say senator

lieberman is talking about what we must do for the next generation. like our proposal, i think a lot of us agree that we can make changes to medicare for the next generation and for those, for example, 55 and over , leave it as it is. why? because people have counted on a particular way the program works and we don't have to change that to start saving. we can just change it for the next generation. i have another quote here i want to share with you. that shows that president obama , at least in his words, understands that we have a problem with medicare. quote, if you look at the numbers, medicare in particular will run out of money and we will not be able to sustain that program no matter how much taxes go up. this is the president. he continues, i mean, it's not an option for us to just sit by

and do nothing. unfortunately those are just words. because that is precisely what the president has done. sit by and do nothing. it's what the senate has done. the house has acted to reform to save medicare. now, the president's health care law has a provision in it, the ipab that i referred to earlier, that impacts medicare, but it doesn't save medicare. it rations medicare. how does that work? well, it's an unelected board, it's an unelected board that will make decisions on where medicare is cut. so the president has had an opportunity to propose reforms to the way medicare works, so

that we can innovate and change it to save it for future generations, reform it, upgrade it, do things better. but instead the president's approach is simply to cut the levels of spending but leave the overall functioning of medicare the same. so no new approach, no reform. just cut when we run out of money. well, what does that result in? it results in seniors not getting the care they need and not just because services are reduced, but because a lot of doctors won't take medicare patients. this is already a problem today.

today there are seniors looking for a doctor to help them with their particular problem and doctor after doctor says, i'm sorry, we don't take medicare. that problem is only going to get worse if the ipab, the independent payment advisory board, that's in the president's health care law, if it does what it is scheduled to do. and what are we doing about it here in the house? well, we certainly voted to repeal the health care -- the president's health care law. that passed the house, did not pass the senate. but we've tried a lot of other ways to get at the problem and one that we're going to do this week is to repeal the ipab. repeal the independent