speaker, our predecessors, our parents and our grandparents came to these shores seeking opportunity, hope and freedom. just as so many immigrants do today. we can create a we can create a pathway to sit zepship to people already here so they could do so legally. of course getting behind those who are already in line through our current legal system. there's no citizenship that becomes anybody's right through this senate immigration reform bill. it simply creates a line. line behind those already in line. a light at the end of the tunnel to show that someday those who aspire to give back to this country, make this country wealthier and more prosperous, those who aspire to pay taxes, those who aspire to

contribute to sths -- social security, so who aspire to live within the rule of law are able to do so someday. the families are reunited now not in 10 years, not in 20 years. we don't have to ever again tell a young girl coming home from school, sorry, your parents have been removed over a tail light or because they are in the wrong place at the wrong time or their workplace was raided because of an unscrupulous employer. we can and must do better. the urgency is now. not only are families torn apart every day, not only are there close to 1,000 people a day crossing that border illegally, which will continue until we act, but we are costing americans jobs and

opportunities every day as well. entrepreneurs and founders and folks that are looking at where to start their next great company that will employ thousands or tens of thousands of people are turning away from our shores. we are turning them away from our shores. mr. speaker, i call upon my colleagues to take up comprehensive immigration reform and pass the senate bill now. i reserve the balance of my time. the speaker pro tempore: the gentleman from colorado reserves. the gentleman from texas is recognized. mr. burgess: i thank the speaker for the recognition. let me remind my colleagues here on the floor of the house we are considering house resolution 339, provides for consideration of h.r. 2775, the no subsidies without verification act of 2013. and he despite all of the -- and despite all of the tactics to distract from that debate, that is what the debate centers on today. i would like to point out to my colleagues an opinion piece in the "wall street journal" from

today called stopping obamacare fraud. i want to read a little bit of the opinion piece. every politician claims to hate fraud in government and the house of representatives will have a chance to prove it wednesday when it votes to close a gigantic hole for potential abuse in the affordable care act. the health and human services department announced in july it won't verify individual eligibility for the tens of billions in insurance subsidies that the law will dole out. americans are supposed to receive those subsidies based on income and only if their employer doesn't provide federally approved health benefits. but until 2015, the rule will be -- the subsidy is fine. continuing to quote from the "wall street journal." health and human service also let the applicants self-attest that they are legally eligible. no further questions asked.

the new obamacare exchanges will also be taking the applicant's word on their projected household income. it seems that what it calls operational barriers to continue to prevent health and human services from checking applications against internal revenue service income data. the administration argues that the fear of later h.h.s. audits will keep applicants honest, though the threat of such checks has hardly prehaven'ted other fraud. the treasury inspector general estimates that 21% to 25% of earned income tax credits go to people who are not eligible. an equivalent rate of fraud in the affordable care act could mean $250 billion in pad payments in a decade. and does health and human services really plan to call back overpayments from individual exchange participants? continuing to quote from the "wall street journal," house republicans by contrast will offer a vote that matters on

tennessee representative diane black's bill to require the administration to have a verification system in place before it hands out subsidies. democrats have been nurenlly quiet in their opposition, perhaps because it is hard to justify voting in effect to give americans subsidies to which they have no legal entitlement. savings for taxpayers aside, the political merit of the house bill is that it puts the spotlight on major -- a major obamacare failure and makes democrats vote either to fix it or to simply go along with the failure. it also highlights another case in which the obama administration is refusing to enforce black letter law. republicans are asking that a vast new entitlement be held to the most basic due diligence or be prudently delayed until it can. if democrats can't support that vote, voters should know, close quote. again from today's "wall street

journal" review and outlook. mr. speaker, it's pretty apparent that the administration is only enforcing those parts of the in its own inds best interest, and if something is inconvenient or embarrassing, it suspends the enforcement. i reserve the balance of my time. the speaker pro tempore: the gentleman from texas reserves. the gentleman from colorado is recognized. mr. polis: mr. speaker, my colleague says we are discussing some bill relating to the affordable care act or health care, it's simply not true that this house is working on health care. the affordable care act is being implemented. it wasn't repealed. i know there was a candidate that ran for president against mr. obama that wanted to appeal it had he been elected. it didn't happen. elections happen. the health care reform are being implemented. i just met with some of the folks in the exchanges in my state of colorado earlier this morning here in my office, i realize the house of representatives has voted 40 imes -- 41 times to repeal

obamacare, it's just talk. the shopping period in the exchanges begins on october 1. coloradoans make many across the country are rolling up their sleeves, going to work, figuring out what the affordable care act means. we even had bipartisan support in my state for a lot of the exchange as well. en connect for colorado goes online next month, more than 817,000 coloradoans will access to choosing a health care insurance product through the exchange. more than 80,000 people in my district. these things are just happening. these is information i'm sharing here with the public. this has nothing to do with these bills we are talking repeal 0 bills to obamacare. what they like or don't like what the president is doing. these things are nothing. these things aren't going to the senate. these things aren't being signed. they are absolutely symbolic and a complete waste of time. while this body hasn't spent one minute on the floor in

consideration of an immigration reform bill. not one minute, which is why i'm taking this time instead of talking about nothing, nothing, nothing 41 repeals of affordable care act when it ain't going to happen because elections matter and have consequences. nothing, not one minute on something. something big. securing our border. restoring the rule of law. reducing our deficit. shoring up social security. improving our national security. making sure that our system is aligned with our values. these are big deals. not one minute. not one minute. a lot of time on nothing, nothing, nothing, nothing. that's what we are doing today. it's what we did yesterday. i sure hope it's not what we are doing tomorrow, but sadly i'm not optimistic. we need to act, mr. speaker, on so many pressing national issues. surely we can spare one minute or 10 minutes or 15 minutes to

discuss and ask the senate immigration reform bill instead of this nothing. this nothing going nowhere. just like yesterday. just like tomorrow. we can do better, mr. speaker. this nation deserves an institution in the house of representatives that serves the people of this country. serves the people in addressing real issues that they face. people that are tired of the undermining of our law by people working illegally. people that are tired of families being torn apart. people that are tired of 1,000 people a day illegally crossing our southern border. today, yes, and tomorrow because of the refusal of this body to allow even one minute to discuss or debate a bill on immigration reform. i reserve the balance of my time. the speaker pro tempore: the gentleman from colorado reserves. the gentleman from texas. mr. burgess: i would remind everyone in the house chamber

that seven times the house has voted to restrict, delay, fund a portion of the affordable care act. certain times those have passed into law and signed by the president. this is an important effort. this was a massive overtaking of the country's health care system that was passed in not a bipartisan fashion but a single party vote. march of 2010. the president has decided now even with his own law, he got everything he wanted in the law, he's going to selectively enforce. we are going to talk about the rule of law, let's talk about the rule of law. the bill before us today is a good rule. it assures those taxpayer subsidies are going to individuals who are deserving of those subsidies. for crying out loud let's stop paying the crooks. i reserve the balance of my time. the speaker pro tempore: the gentleman from texas reserves. the gentleman from colorado. mr. polis: i would require if the gentleman has any remaining

speakers? mr. burgess: the gentleman from texas has unlimited speakers in himself, beyond me, no. mr. polis: ok. the hordes of people coming to speak on this bill were not apparent to me here. i am prepared to close, mr. speaker. seeing no speakers. i yield myself the balance of the time. the speaker pro tempore: the gentleman is recognized. mr. speaker, despite spending hours and days of debate here on affordable care act, repealing it, defunding it, it's being implemented. that's happening. elections have consequences. as the speaker of this esteemed body himself has said, paraphrase, it's unlikely that we will repeal obamacare with a fellow named obama in the white house. it's simply a truism. yet here we are today discussing something that will go nowhere and does nothing. instead of something that will

go somewhere and does something. this bill before us fails to replace our broken immigration system with one that works. if this bill before us today passes, i guarantee you that 1,000 people will continue to cross illegally into the country tomorrow, the next day, and next day. this bill cost not -- does not secure our borders at all. this bill does not reduce our deficit by over $100 billion. this bill does not reflect our values in our immigration system. this bill does not allow us to look in the mirror at night knowing that we are a nation of immigrants and nation of laws and we must reconcile those two. the senate passed a bipartisan comprehensive immigration bill last june. a bill that holds two true to

these principles, the principles of fiscal responsibility, reducing our deficit, shoring up social security. the principle of national security, finally getting serious about securing our southern border. implementing mandatory workplace authentication to ensure that employers are following the law. the principle of job creation and competitiveness. a system that will make sure that the great companies of tomorrow are based here and that we have access to the talent we need to be great and grow our economy as a country. the senate comprehensive immigration reform bill would grow our g.d.p. by over 3.3%. this bill will not. this bill will not. finally, this bill does nothing to address the concerns that have been raised by the catholic conference of bishops, by the evangelical immigration round table, by faith-based groups, and a broad coalition

across this country, and by those who value our traditions and our values as americans, this bill does nothing to reconcile our immigration system with our values. and the senate immigration bill does. we can take it up now. we can pass it now. the president has expressed a willingness to sign it now. and i encourage my colleagues to vote no and defeat the previous question. to vote no on this restrictive rule and unnecessary bill so that finally we can bring forward the senate immigration reform bill, pass it, and send it to the president of the united states to get serious about addressing problems the american people by an overwhelming majority actually want us to solve. the senate bipartisan bill would bring people like javier out of the shadows, reunite

gabriela with her sister and parents, and provide them with an accelerated path to earn permanent residence so they can contribute to make our country even greater. mr. speaker, today is the day isn't about the affordable care act or health care in general. what's happening is happening. some people like it, some don't. it's happening. this debate is purely politics. i ask my friends on the other side of the aisle why are we not focused on replacing our broken immigration system? with one that works. my colleagues on the other side of the aisle join me on voting no, defeating this rule, and defeating the previous question . perhaps we can finally get to work on so we can finally get to work on the people's business here in the house of representatives and finally fix our broken -- broken immigration system and replace it with one that works for our prosperity, our security, and for job creation for americans. i yield back the balance of my time.

the speaker pro tempore: the gentleman from colorado yields back. the gentleman from texas is recognized. mr. burgess: mr. speaker, again, let me remind you why we are here today. we are here today because the president, who signed the patient protection and affordable care act into law, march of 2010, on july 2 of this year decided he was not going to enforce a portion of the law unilaterally. the president made the decision, didn't consult with congress, put it out in a blog post on you are with of -- one of their white house websites on july 2. three days later, the friday before the fourth of july weekend, they came out with a raft of regulations and buried within that raft of regulations was the fact that, oh, by the way, we're not checking anybody who comes in. they were required to do that because by not enforcing the employer mandate, that was in their law that they signed, by not enforcing the employer mandate the data would not be clicted and in fact there was no

way -- collected and in fact there was no way to enforce that data. so we simply don't need the data. we'll trust people are going to be honest. if they come in and say they need a subsidy, of course they need a subsidy, we'll give it to them. and, yeah, at some point it might even be checked against their i.r.s. records. how are you going to call that back from someone who doesn't have the money anymore because, after all, the dollars in the subsidy don't go to the individual, they go to the insurance company. it's not like that individual went and deposited that in a bank account. it went to their insurance company to buy their health insurance. the money's been spent, the policy has been utilized or not, but that water is under the bridge. i didn't ask for this debate. i didn't ask for the president to sign the health care bill into law, but he did. but then i sure didn't ask him to just delay parts of it. if anything is inconvenient to you, mr. president, just kind of put it away, put it to the side. all kinds of things have fallen off the affordable care act as it's bucked and burped down the road toward implementation.

you may remember the debate about pre-existing conditions. what about the federal pre-existing condition program? anyone who showed up after february 1 of this year to be covered under the federal pre-existing condition program is told, sorry, the window is closed, we're not signing up any more individuals because we're out of money. so they had to wait 11 months until then. but what are they to do for that 11 months if they've got a diagnosis which is incompatible with life, unless they get treatment, but the administration didn't care about that. they simply suspended enrollment to the pre-existing condition program. what about the caps on out-of-pocket expenses that an individual could incur during a year? under the affordable care act there were caps signed into law by the president. ah, the caps were excluded because it's kind of

inconvenient and we don't want to do that anymore. as a small business, health exchange is delayed for a year. what else is going to fall off this thing as it lurches toward implementation on january 1? i don't know. but i do know this. we have an opportunity today to vote on a rule that allows a bill to come to the floor that will require that the department of health and human services, general assure that those individuals who come and say, hey, i'm eligible for a subsidy, to ensure that they are in fact eligible for that subsidy. we fight all the time in committee with money going out the door at the department of health and human services, the pay-and-chase model. it clearly doesn't work. medicare and medicaid, inappropriate payments, inefficient expenditures happen all the time. let's not make that worse. let's stop paying the crooks. we have an opportunity today to stop paying the crooks. mr. speaker, today's rule provides for the consideration of a critical bill to protect

taxpayer dollars from the rampant fraud inevitable in an undertaking as massive as the health insurance overhaul that is known as obamacare. i congratulate my colleague from tennessee, mrs. black, for her thoughtful piece of legislation and for that reason i'll yield back the balance of my time, move the previous question and encourage my colleagues to vote yes on the rule and yes on the underlying bill. the speaker pro tempore: the gentleman from texas yields back. the question is on ordering the previous question on the resolution. those in favor say aye. those opposed, no. in the opinion of the chair, the ayes have it. the gentleman from texas. mr. burgess: may i ask for the yeas and nays on that vote. the speaker pro tempore: the yeas and nays are requested. all those in favor of taking this vote by the yeas and nays will rise and remain standing until counted. a sufficient number having arisen, pursuant to clause 8 of rule 20, further proceedings on this question will be postponed. the yeas and nays are ordered. pursuant to clause 12-a of rule 1, the house will stand

>> meanwhile fox news is tweeting this afternoon, still no plans for house republicans to convene rules meeting today. so house can consider c.r. thursday. reservations about the c.r. and possible trouble with the rule. that from chad. more details as they become available. live house coverage when they return here on c-span. and until they do return, we'll bring you part of this morning's "washington journal," our spotlight on magazine series, focusing on the 50th anniversary of the j.f.k. assassination. host: the "washington journal" on wednesday as we look at recent magazine articles, part of our spotlight on magazine series. today we are focusing on a special commemorative issue of the atlantic, j.f.k. is on the cover, his time and ours. marking the approaching 50th anniversary of j.f.k.'s assassination.

in studio james bennett, editor in chief of the atlantic is joining us. what is this about and why you decided to put out this commemorative edition? guest: we are approaching the 50th anniversary of the assassination of j.f.k. so many y unlike presidents of the 20th century remains with us today. his legacy is so contested. views of him are still all over the map. historians don't rate him that hy. they put him in the top 20 of presidents. but americans overall rate him extremely high, the pose popular president of the 20th century beside franklin roosevelt. the atlantic has been around a long time, 150 years, we covered the kennedy administration thoroughly at the time. in the years since our writers have struggled down through the years consistent with the question of what impact his administration had and what kennedy was like as a man.

it's like an opportunity for us to step back, commission some new stories, insight into the revelations of all the other 50 years since he was killed and putting that together with some of the great pieces by walter litman and other writers, gary wills, over the years and try to produce a composite portrait of a man and his moment and his presidency. host: what would you say is new about what you put together here? different from past conversations, past additions, publications, books on j.f.k.? >> i think there's some new -- there's a wonderful essay by robert about kennedy's struggles with the joint chiefs. it's the most clear-eyed portrait of how he handled cuban missile crisis. the atlantic has been onual sides of this, praising his handling of it at the time. condemning him since for having provoked it. what robert shows is kennedy was

in a real battle not just with the soviets at the time but with his own joint chiefs who were accusing him of appeasement and trying to rush him into war in cuba. and he successfully fought them off internally. and eventually achieved a negotiated compromise. host: this as the piece is an exert from the new book. adapted, and in this piece he writes this, kennedy's biggest worry about the military was not the personalities involved but rather the freedom of field commanders to launch nuclear weapons without explicit permission from the commander in chief. 10 days after becoming president kennedy learned from his national security advisor, george bundy, that a subordinate commander faced with saub sanction russian military action could start the their mow nuclear holocaust on his own initiative. was the deputy defense secretary recalled, we became increasingly horrified over how little positive control the president

really had over the use of this great arsenal of nuclear weapons. guest: kennedy was shocked to discover that field commanders had a wide degree of latitude in deploying nuclear weapons. the joint chiefs believed then very strongly we could fight and win a nuclear war. these are still the relatively early years of the world and u.s. and our defense apparatus coming to terms with the vast power of our own nuclear arsenal and how it changed the way war would be conducted, the way diplomacy should be conducted. kennedy was, and i think again this is one of the ways his administration had an enduring impact, was -- the first president to really try to bring that under executive authority, full executive authority. >> how did he respond to that power? guest: by struggling to bring the power -- under civilian control and lifting it up certainly from the level of

field commanders. again in cuba the joint chiefs brought the nuke -- thought nuclear war should be an option after a five-day bombing campaign if necessary, they would have resorted to a full-on invasion and they believe nukes could have been potentially deployed in that theater as well. it was more of a live option at the time. host: in robert's piece in this special edition of "the atlantic" magazine adapt interested his new book, camelot's court, inside the kennedy white house. there's the commemorative edition on your screen marking the upcoming 50th anniversary of j.f.k.'s assassination. that's our topic for the editor in chief of "the atlantic." john in newborn, north carolina, democrat, a caller. go ahead. caller: how many decades need to past before journalists and employers feel it's safe the free fall on 9/11 and the evidence proving that the preplanted explosives brought that building down.

host: that's not our topic this morning. we have addressed the phone calls from you and others that are part of the group that have made an effort to call in to this program. going to move on. tony in austin, texas, independent caller. hi, tony. caller: hi, last year i called in to c-span on 9/11 as i do every year, and as soon as i told the screener that i was want agnew investigation of 9/11, she hung up on me. and i'm not sure why we cannot be taken seriously. i think you should get an expert on 9/11 on, from the alternate side and let's discuss this. host: we have taken your phone call. we appreciate you are exercising your right to call in and voice your opinion. that is the format of this show. we have had members of congress who are on -- who were on the program when you and others have

called in to answer those questions. that's not our topic right now. and so i'm going to move on and tick to the "atlantic special" commemorative edition looking at j.f.k., the man and his leadership. you, mr. bennett, talked earlier about alan brinkley's piece, talking about how historians don't give him such a great grade. but americans do. can you talk more about why that is? jade: -- guest: alan brinkley writes along with bill clinton to this issue and wrestles with this question, what is the explanation for president kennedy's enduring grip on the imagination. i think it's the glamour, memory camelot as jackie kennedy recalled the years in the white house.

kennedy we remember him as popularly as this tremendously charismatic figure who called americans to a higher purpose and injected a new element of morality into public affairs. in fact, he was a deeply reserved and highly pragmatic man. in many ways extremely cold and calculating. but that impression of him endures. then a point both he and bill clinton make is that for all the turbulence of that year, i know the administration was cut short his assassination, it did wind up serving as a springboard to a tremendous amount of change on civil rights, on the conduct of foreign affairs, medicare, and so forth. the great society, l.b.j. premised on things he said john kennedy had called for. so it was kind of a pivotal moment in our history. also obviously modern techniques of campaigning, the political tactics that john kennedy put in

place. he was the youngest president ever to serve. he came into office at 43. replacing then the oldest serving u.s. president, dwight eisenhower. i think for many americans and not just baby boomers, you recall us marking an important pivot point in history. host: president kennedy spent less than three years in the white house. his first year was a disaster as he himself acknowledged. guest: yeah. he couldn't get anything done. he struggled all the way through. he had a terrible relationship with congress. he got very little of his legislative agenda through, despite having huge democratic majorities in both houses. he obviously had disastrous bay of pigs invasion in that first year. something that he learned from, he intentionally regretted. felt like he had been essentially railroaded i think

by the pentagon. he had his first encounter with nikita khrushchev in which he came away looking unprepared. and so it was the first year was a big learning experience for the president. host: you have in this special edition original reporting from -- during kennedy's years, but also around those years as well. too cool for congress was the headline by david brinkley in february of 1965. originally entitled leading from strength, l.b.j. in action. talk about his relationship with -- too cool for congress could be a headline that some put on this administration. guest: there are interesting exos, which you asked at the outset why do it now? there are interesting comparisons to be drawn between that administration and this one. david brinkley is a very famous

broadcaster, also a wonderful writer. deeply knowledgeable about congress and washington. he says -- he argues in this piece part of the reason that kennedy failed with congress is that he simply couldn't connect. he vaulted to the white house after only briefly serving in the senate. he remained in awe of the old lions and bulls of the senate. i think a little insecure dealing with them. and then brinkley makes an argument there was simply a cultural disconnect. that's the too cool point. that congressmen serving from rural america, elsewhere in america, weren't that impressed by this extremely sophisticated, glamorous white house full of mozart and artist all the time. host: what was his approach? was it intellectual? guest: it was excessively intellectual. he wasn't down.

he wasn't shaking hands and he wasn't going into the congress and meeting with these guys and talking to them the way they lining to be talked to. he was a remote president. host: our fist phone call here, silver spring, maryland, republican caller. go ahead. caller: hi, how are you doing? do i have a question. i know historians have tried to address this, the relationship between kennedy and his brother, bobby, how much influence did he have not just in domestic issues but also when it comes to foreign policy? i'm curious to get your opinion on that? guest: i'm fascinated by that same question. i should say i don't pretend to be a historian myself of the kennedys, and i'm not -- i'm an expert on our own work, i can only really answer the question within the am bant of what we write. nd our coverage has shown they

were extremely close. and john kennedy realized hugely on bobby during his own administration. that's as far as i can take it. sorry. host: talk a little bit more about the original reporting that you have in this piece and high did you go about -- how did you go about calling this and your decision what to put in? from the "atlantic's" archive's or from the era. guest: we were looking for pieces by great writers that advanced provocative points of view, which is what we try to do, but we were looking very much to see how the tenor of the atlantic's own coverage changed. one of the things that fascinated me about it was the way our own approach to the administration changed contemporaneously. in those years the atlantic published something called the

report on washington which was a monthly summary of what would later be called beltway insider opinion of kind of how the new president was doing. something that wouldn't exist today by the way when everything is happening on twitter and minute to minute. in those days a monthly magazine could update its readers what beltway opinion was. what you see is a very kind of familiar arc of coverage. we started out in these anonymous pieces which were written by very eminent journalists here sleetly excited and in awe of this charismatic new president and sort of huge praise for his assembling this great team of young advisors. this wonderful new breeze in washington, moves very quickly to a jaded, cynical attitude about this guy. we have heard this before. it's the same act. there's a piece in i think july of 1963 saying that opens with

the observation that no words ever uttered by john f. kennedy proved more embarrassing to him than his inaugural exhortation that you should ask not what a country should do for you but what you should do for a country. which those words are remembered as some of the most aspiring ever uttered in -- by a president. host: why was that embarrassing? guest: our view was that he had gotten so little done. and he so failed to deliver on the promise of that exhortation, which is provide means for mericans to get more involved. he says he did push for the peace core but beyond that he had basically done nothing. as the atlantic went to press, our issue of december of 1963, which went to the printer and would have reached newsstands when john f. kennedy was killed, the washington report said, this administration has moved very quickly from the cry of what can be done to the lament of what

can't be done. and that there's this aura of pervasive gloom in washington and the piece goes on to wonder how he's possibly going to recapture the dynamism of his first campaign during his re-elect. by the time kennedy was assassinated, the inspirational message, the notion he was charismatic in bringing something new to washington had worn thin. there is also criticism for failing to revive the economy. he had come in saying he was going to get commit going. that hadn't happened. in his overall legislative agenda we already discussed had gone nowhere. host: columbus, georgia, independent caller. caller: good morning. thanks for c-span. thank you for taking my call. the screener said it was ok to talk about the assassination and i was wondering how mr. bennett felt. it's hard to believe that oswald acted alone, almost impossible because although he shot the president, though he said he was

patsy, i believe he was a patsy. he had people helping him. a lot of people loved the president. a lot of people hated him. i was wondering, mr. bennett said something about the military had problems with the president, and the president advise versa. i think that bay of pigs fiasco here, what really put it over -- from that day on people had planned to kill him. some people even call him a traitor. host: mr. bennett. guest: again i don't pretend to be an expert on all the different theories of the kennedy assassination. in this issue we sat in on our archives and it's just a very short surprising little nugget of lyndon johnson quoted in the piece that we ran i believe in 1973 saying that he never believed that oswald acted alone. and that he essentially agreed with you that there was some sort of a cuban connection,

reprisal, not necessarily for the bay of pigs, but for the other attempts on castro's -- to destabilize the regime or kill castro over the years. beyond that we also publish in this issue a wonderful short story by thomas mallon, who by the way is and exspert on the assassination, has written voluminously on it for us and for others, in which he just imagines a counter factual and tells the story in which oswald loses his nerve and doesn't shoot kennedy and what then would have transpired over the course of that night. host: connecticut, democratic caller. you're on the air. caller: mr. bennett, how are you. i'm a subscriber to your magazine. i love the magazine. guest: thank you very much. caller: you were talking about the joint chiefs of staff and the trouble that kennedy had with that. it wasn't just with kennedy alone. eisenhower had trouble with that also. and nixon did later.

eisenhower had trouble when they -- the u-2 spy plane. a lot of historians thought that was done purposely to undercut his meetings with the -- khrushchev. and nixon later on had the moral radford affair where he was being spied on. the joint chiefs of staff, especially after the world war era for 20 years really ran amuck and nobody brought them in. the only one that did anything was truman was when he cut down macarthur. they thought they were entitled to run their own show without any input from civilian authorities. i just wanted to get that out there. thank you. guest: thank you. i think that's just an excellent point. it is a thread running through american history. certainly the modern history of the presidency, this tension between the kind of permanent defense infrastructure and the

civilian control of the white house. host: civil rights legislation as written put the federal government into every business plan divide since. they go on to say -- question whether or not that was a bad idea or good idea. you write about j.f.k.'s civil rights problems. i have a report from washington in 1963 about what was going on there. guest: this is, again, one of the things that he was criticized for in our pages and elsewhere in the first couple years of his administration was basically avoiding talking about the civil rights at all. at a time the issue was beginning to really explode. in the south, particularly across the country, and he basically ducked. until june, 1963, and again this is something that bill clinton really seized on in his own assessment of kennedy when he gave this very moving speech about the importance of

advancing civil rights. something that l.b.j. would obviously see as a torch that he would pick up and carry forward. host: passing the torch is the piece written by the former president, bill clinton, 42nd president assesses the civil rights accomplishments of the 35th. tranquility tweets in this. do you think j.f.k. would have gotten us out of vietnam had he lived? guest: this is an endlessly debated question. i'm sorry i hate to -- i just don't feel qualified to answer it. there's a wonderful piece in here that i think is a very, very important piece, actually, in understanding how we got into vietnam. it's an argument about kind of imperatives ic that deepened our experience there. the unwillingness of people to speak up and oppose this mission

and the sidelining of experts over time. it's possible that john kennedy, you see it in the cuban missile crisis, again as he gets stronger over the course of his presidency, more deeply skeptical about the ability of military force to really advance a diplomatic objective. it seems conceivable that he may have recognized the danger of deepening our involvement in vietnam, but it's impossible for me to say he would have gotten us out of there. it's quite interesting, this came up, we talked about it a the in your last segment comparison to what's happening now in syria, is this something, and how would john f. kennedy handled it? the last segment that it's understood to be a proxy war. it shows actually taking kennedy out of it just how much the times have changed.

cuba then very much was a proxy struggle. and with nuclear arma gedon waiting in the wings -- armageddon waiting in the wings. fortunately the issue as we struggle with the russians over what the path is forward here, it's not seen as that kind of proxy stand off with the risk of the deployment of nuclear weapons. host: there is a piece in here by gary wills from february 19, 82, nirnlly entitled, the kennedy president, prisoner of toughness. you put the headline on there, did kennedy cause the crisis? writing conventional wisdom has tended to rank the cuban missile crisis as the kennedy presidency's highest drama and grandest success. drama, yes. but this provocative recounting of the policy towards castro's cuba suggested kennedy brought the crisis on himself.

guest: the argument is quite persuasive is castro had ever -- every reason to feel scared and want missiles in cuba for defensive purposes because the kennedys had made very clear their desire to see him brought down. and so gary wills' argument is essentially kennedy provoked the crisis in the first place. i think it's very important historic context for this. host: anyone seeing a resemblance here between kennedy and mr. obama? guest: brian, mass marks republican caller, hi. caller: thank you for letting me come on. i remember when president kennedy was assassinated and all the teachers and students in the high school were crying. i had a couple of questions, real brief.

thank you for entertaining them. i understand that douglas macarthur, the famous general of world war ii, and the korean war, advised mr. kennedy to, president kennedy not to get involved in vietnam. i wonder if you had any comments on that. finally, what about the lasting legacy of the nasa and peace corps for president kennedy? i'll take my answers off line. thank you. guest: i can't address the first question. i just don't know the facts. the second regarding the peace corps and nasa, i think both are obviously incredibly important to explaining, i think, why people remember kennedy so fondly for the most part. the moon shot obviously was an extraordinary example of a president summoning the country

to a new national mission and sense of purpose. a lot of people thought was not achievable when he enunciated it. we did make it to the moon by the end of the decade as he envisioned. as alan brinkley writes in the introduction, his view this is one of the reasons kennedy endures the way he does, there was just a sense and remembrance feeling of american possibility that his administration we live with, not in the same way today. and the peace corps also, again, summoning americans to some sort of a higher purpose. there is a really, to me, to my mind, a really interesting piece in here by eleanor roosevelt, actually, about the peace corps in which she's making a very nonsentimental argument for it. it's not just about sort of idealingsic young people going out into the world. it's about containing the soviet

union. her argument is she said i have spent time in russia. i see the way they are training their young people. i have spent time in places like morocco. i have seen the way the colonial powers are retreating. and these countries need experts and the russians are going to be in the position to supply those experts to help them make the transition to the new era and full independence if we don't have our people in there, we are going to lose this struggle over the long haul. which is very kind of hardheaded argument for why we needed a peace corps. host: editor and chief of "the atlantic" talking about their special commemorative edition they have just put out. some of the pieces will be available online. but it is a lengthy piece, a special edition with an introduction by the former president, bill clinton, and several other pieces throughout the magazine. it is marking the upcoming 50th anniversary of j.f.k.'s assassination. a chance to talk about the man

and the legacy. sean, portland, oregon, democratic caller. hi. caller: i would like first of all to thank the atlantic. i worked for j.f.k. in 1960 as a student for kennedy when he was running for president. host: what did you do? caller: he came to our little town, we met him. shook his hands. looked his eyes. he said those who can't vote, will you help us by putting papers under people's windshield wipers? will you put things under people's doors? will you hang them on their door knobs? kennedy for president. it was an incredible, incredible time. i spent the last 50 years, i think, both mourning kennedy and studying him. it was a privilege to meet him. i think he would have gotten us out of vietnam. most of all i really want to thank the atlantic. i think people are starting to forget him and i do not want that to happen.

i think he was the best and i thank you so much. host: before you go, can i ask you, you worked for him on a campaign. he was elected to office. in the three years that he served in the white house, how did you feel about his lack of legislative accomplishments or his agenda those first three years? caller: i thought his agenda was wonderful. i thought -- this brings us back get some e couldn't things through. i think he was late to come to civil rights. think -- i'm having trouble ven explaining how i feel. host: it sounds like your adoration f. i may use that word, never dwindled for him. caller: it never dwindled.

i have lit a cannel every year and i'm very glad that more and more people think that oswald did not act alone. and i thank you so much. host: mr. bennett. est: to me it's -- thank you very much for that call, shawn. tremendously sutching after 50 years. -- touching after 50 years. she retains that adoration for that president. host: in putting this together, i think i read in the introduction, maybe in your editor's note, you talked to a poet who had put together a poem yule guising the president. you asked to republish the poem. he said he would agree to that as long as you omitted one line. which line was it and why? guest: this is the poet john leroux, who published a poem in "the atlantic" shortly after, immediately after the assassination called "death of a man." we contacted him to ask if we could republish it as part of

this issue, and he said we could on condition that we delete this one line in which he described kennedy as being cradled by his queen in life. i think were the words. i think i have that right. and he said it always bothered him. he regretted it almost as he wrote it. i called him to talk about why that was, because i was interested in the question of how his own view of kennedy may have changed. what he said is it just -- he was a seminarian when he wrote this poem. which is quite a powerful poem. he said that he regretted it because it played into the notion that sort of trumpets were sounding and this represented a seismic, incredible break of some sort. rather than the tragic death of one man. it was 'twas i think in his mind didn't use this word but

dehumanizing where the rest of the poem is not that. and he said at the time so many -- they ated it as treated it as an event of kind of biblical proportion, and turned kennedy into kind of a god-like figure, which i think he came to think was unfair to history and unfair to kennedy. host: ronnie's next. contract c independent caller. caller: yes, ma'am. i just want to say i remember exactly when this happened to mr. kennedy. i was in a school. i'm 63 years old now, so i was probably around 12 or 13 or so. i remember the whole class how heartbroken we all were to hear

the news. and i just felt it would have been so nice for him to be able -- he would have been the greatest president in my lifetime that i have ever been able to know. -- thank don't find you for honoring mr. kennedy. thank you. guest: thank you very much. thank you for the call. it's funny, i do think another reason that he still remains with us the way he does is just there are so many unanswered questions about what he would have done had he lived and where his presidency would have gone. like other presidents he grew in office and he changed. he became more experienced. and got better. and it would have -- and questions again like what would

he have done with vietnam, where would he have gone with civil rights? are just going to be endlessly debated. host: in this special edition you have quite a deep section dedicated to what happened on november 22, 1963, 12:30 p.m. tell people about what they will find in this magazine. guest: again we do not spend a huge amount of time in this issue debating the warren commission or its findings because one could devote and many people have, whole books, to that subject without reaching any kind of meaningful resolution. find in there the speculation i mentioned earlier by l.b.j. that oswald in his view probably didn't act alone. and also this terrific tom mallen short story, a different way of approaching the assassination.

and we have, i think, a very powerful photo gallery that recalls the assassination and the immediate aftermath. host: you can find this special edition on newsstands now? guest: it's on newsstands now. it's also available electronically in the atlantic app. i hope people pick it up and enjoy it. host: with a couple months to go before we mark the anniversary that assassination, what -- what's the take away from this magazine and from j.f.k.'s legacy? sayt: i think -- i tried to i feel like it's that -- all of these versions of kennedy are to some extent true. we haven't even discussed those kind of private cruelties of the

infidelity, the fact that he lived with pain and was heavily medicated during a lot of his presidency, all of which is reflected in our issue. yet also to some degree he transcended all of that. and did manage to summon the nation to a higher sense of itself, a higher sense of its purpose both at home and in the world. and his administration really confusion all the and uncertainty and moving from crisis to crisis, it ultimately significantly helped drive the country forward. host: james bennett is the editor in chief of "the atlantic" thank you very much for talking to our viewers and sharing the stories part of this special commemorative edition of "the atlantic" magazine. j.f.k. his time and ours. thank you. >> the house returning in about 15 minutes or so. around 2:10 p.m. eastern. our round of votes, one round of votes, including the vote on the rule for a bill that deals with the health care law and the

individual insurance portion of that. we'll have live coverage here on c-span. the house had expected to vote on final passage on that bill, but that won't happen today as they will move that into tomorrow. there had been some consideration the house would take up the continuing resolution funding the federal government past the end of the fiscal year at the end of this month, but that is not going to happen. key reports and house republican leaders will delay a report on continuing resolution to extend government operations past september 30 until next week. until a notice to members backing away from earlier plans to bring that measure to the floor tomorrow, the leadership decided to pull the stopgap funding plan after an outcry from g.o.p. conservatives over a decision to use a legislative maneuver that would allow the senate to reject a provision intended to withdraw funding for the implementation of the health care law. so no c.r. this week in the

house. we'll have house coverage again at 2:10 when they gavel back in. there has been some reaction today on capitol hill to president obama's speech on syria. representative paul ryan issuing a statement saying he opposes, he now opposes any use of military force. on this morning's "washington journal" we talked about the diplomatic efforts on syria. host: diplomatic correspondent for bloomberg news joining us from new york. let's begin with what's been happening since the president's speech, any effort made? >> good morning. the speech just took place last night and it's been overnight nd, you know, the speech having -- the president obama made very clear that the u.s. will try to pursue the diplomatic track and others see the americans playing a big role. we will see everything at

tongue and cheek this morning. the first thing that president obama is going to do is weigh out what exactly will be achieved when secretary kerry oes to meet a diplomat thursday. and then we'll see if they're able to reach an agreement on how they want to perceive this diplomatic path. once that is decided, it will be now back to the united nations security council for a follow-up. host: what does the united states want in some sort of diplomatic solution or agreement, and what do -- what does syria want, what does russia want, who are the players here? >> for the u.s., america is going to want to negotiate with the russians how they will be able to ensure that the transfer of chemical weapons to international control, which

the syrians have -- agree to, will be done in a credible and verifiable way. and there needs to be discretion on the timeline of how quickly they can get this done and how safely this can be done. i think that will be top priority. ow, what i'm interested to know is that before president obama's speech yesterday, the french, they put up a draft resolution. they had a meeting of u.k., u.s. and, you know, french -- they expressed a possible resolution that, number one, primarily condemns the syrian regime basha assad's in the august 21 alleged chemical weapons attack, now, this will be the major point for the western countries in demanding responsibility and holding this regime

accountable. that will be the one big hurdle that the russians and syrians will not agree to. document agree to a that pinpoints the assad regime responsible for massive use of chemical weapons attacks that illed over 1200 people, let us explore where president assad may have to end up before the international criminal court, you know, for having violated international norms and for using weapons of mass destruction. and russia, being allies, doesn't want to see that happen. they want to see the regime , tinue and obviously such you know -- i think that will do two things. wonder for obama's diplomatic -- what he talked about

yesterday, if this is talking around, having to identify the assad regime in the u.n. documents and discussing behind thursday with secretary kerry the exact details on making sure that the chemical weapons transfer happens. host: and sangwon, why do you think that's important? >> i think it's important because obama -- the entire world knows that the united nations has been paralyzed because it continues to veto. the veto came down to the point of identifying assad as culpable for using chemical weapons. now, this whole issue of whether the u.s. will launch military strike or not has dragged on for weeks, and now gotten to a point where obama has back tracked what he said a week and a half and two weeks ago, the u.n. is paralyzed and

there is a dead lock and the u.s. needs to continue on with this military strike, skip the u.n. if there is a need to do so and now he's backing the diplomatic approach. before obama wants to see this happen i think maybe kind of realistically speaking side stepping this issue of culpability and be realistic and talking to the russians about a way forward on timeline and tactical issues and perhaps that could lead to diplomatic proimpress. -- progress and that could avoid the issue -- carried on for the past weeks and months. st: sangwon yoon, to wrap this up, what do the united nations play in this if any at all? >> right now there will be bilateral discussions between the u.s. and russia.

when it's worked out, then it will come down to the security council for fuller implementation. at this point it's still a discussion between quote-unquote the capitals, between secretary kerry and the foreign minister and any outcome will then let us know how the u.n. can really get security council to interfere or not interfere at all. host: thank you for your time this morning. >> thank you. >> the house will be gaveling in in about five minutes, expected at 2:10 eastern for their one and only round of votes this afternoon. we'll have live coverage. until then, our conversation from this morning's "washington journal" on where things stand n congress in regard to syria. host: bolten, senior staff writer for "the hill" newspaper, is joining us on the phone to talk about congress delaying this vote. alex bolten, where does it

stand then? is there still an effort to keep debating this in congress, particularly on the senate floor, or is it completely on ice? >> it's completely on ice. the president visited with the senate democratic caucus yesterday as well as the senate republican conference, and he asked members on both sides of the aisle not to do anything that would undermine the threat of military force against syria. and so what he asked for is no vote on any resolution because the whipping was showing this was likely -- had a good chance of losing in the senate if it came to a vote this week as initially was expected and was headed for certain defeat in the house. what president obama says -- said, you can go ahead and negotiate or discuss the possibility of a resolution that could be voted on sometime in the future, but put everything on hold for now and

lawmakers were happy to abide by that. harry reid canceled the vote that he had -- was expected to schedule this week. host: so we see in the papers this morning, there were efforts behind the scene, john mccain, lindsey graham, senior democrats working together to draft another bipartisan resolution. once it became public there was this diplomatic maneuvering happening, are they still talking and negotiating? >> they are. mccain hosted the meeting in his office yesterday afternoon with several democrats and republicans, and what this alternative resolution would do is it would authorize military strikes against syria if the international diplomatic process doesn't work. so if syria does not agree to turn over its chemical weapons stockpile to international monitors and if the u.n. does

not go ahead with a resolution blaming the assad regime for gassing its own people, then obama would have the authority to launch military strikes. but it's not clear that this most recent iteration would draw a lot more support than what previously was seemed headed towards failure. it acknowledges the diplomatic process going forward, but it would still give the president the authority to wage strikes, and that's what people were seeking last week when there was no diplomatic process to talk about. host: so alexander bolton, i mean, what do you think happens next? what do these lawmakers that were reluctant to support a military strike, what are they looking for here? >> well, what they're looking for is clear and compelling argument from the president that attacking syria is in the nation's national security interest, and the president tried to make that argument

yesterday when he spoke to the nation. he argued that if theres no punishment to assad, then other dictators will amass chemical weapons and these weapons ultimately could be used against u.s. forces. so that was his national security argument, but i don't know whether it's going to prove all that compelling to lawmakers. i think when they were talking about the need to see a national security threat, i think they were thinking something bigger and broader. so i don't think -- i don't think it changes all that much the developments over the last couple of days in terms of supporting a strike resolution. now, maybe as this drags on and maybe as people in congress see just how unwilling syria is to do anything on the diplomatic front, maybe they'll be more inclined -- >> we'll take you live now back

to the house floor for their series of votes. ious question on house resolution 339. adoption of house resolution 339, if ordered. and agreeing to the speaker's approval of the journal, if ordered. the first electronic vote will be conducted as a 15-minute vote. remaining electronic votes will be conducted as five-minute votes. the unfinished business is the vote on ordering the previous question on house resolution 339 on which the yeas and nays are ordered. the clerk will report the title of the resolution. the clerk: house calendar number 51, house resolution 339. resolution providing for consideration of the bill, h.r. 2775, to condition the provision of premium and cost sharing subsidies under the patient protection and affordable care act upon a certification that a program to verify household income and other qualifications for such subsidies is operational and for other purposes. the speaker pro tempore: the question is on ordering the previous question. members will record their votes by electronic device. this will be 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 ayes are 227. the noes are 196. the previous question is ordered. the question is on adoption of the resolution. so many as are in favor say aye. those opposed, no. the ayes have it. the resolution is adopted. the gentleman from colorado. mr. polis: on that i request

the yeas and nays. the speaker pro tempore: the yeas and nays are requested. those favoring a vote by the yeas and nays will rise. a sufficient number having arisen, the yeas and nays are ordered. members will record their votes by electronic device. this will be a five-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 228. the nays are 195. the resolution is agreed to. without objection, the motion

to reconsider is laid on the table. pursuant to clause 8 of rule 20, the unfinished business is the request on agreeing to the speaker's approval of the journal which the chair will put de novo. the question is on agreeing to the speaker's approval of the journal. those in favor say aye. those opposed, no. in the opinion of the chair, the ayes have it and the journal stands approved.

the speaker pro tempore: for what purpose does the gentleman from indiana rise? >> mr. speaker, i ask unanimous consent my name be removed as co-sponsor on h.r. 2918. the speaker pro tempore: without objection. >> mr. speaker, i ask unanimous consent that when the house adjourns today it adjourn to meet at 9:00 a.m. tomorrow. the speaker pro tempore: without objection. for what purpose does the gentleman from missouri seek recognition? mr. clay: mr. speaker, i ask unanimous consent to remove my name as co-sponsor of h.r. 1077. the speaker pro tempore: without objection.

the speaker pro tempore: the house will be in order. will members please take their conversations off the floor?

the speaker pro tempore: the house will come to order. members, please take your conversations off the floor.

the speaker pro tempore: the house will come to order. the chair will now entertain requests for one-minute speeches. the speaker pro tempore: for what purpose does the gentlewoman from florida seek recognition?

ms. ros-lehtinen: i ask permission to address the house for one minute and to revise and extend my remarks. the speaker pro tempore: without objection, the gentlewoman is recognized for one minute. ms. ros-lehtinen: mr. speaker, i rise today to honor the memory of an extraordinary public servant, beloved colleague, gifted statesman and fellow floridian, congressman e. clay shaw jr. clay passed away peacefully lost night surrounded by his loving and supportive family after struggling with lung cancer for many years. clay was born and reared in south florida and developed into a hardworking, remarkable man, a strong voice for his district as well as for the entire sunshine state. mayor of fort lauderdale at an early age, clay quickly earned the respect of our community and cultivated the skills necessary to be elected to the house of representatives in 1980, serving here hobblely for 26 years. clay set the bar high for --

honorably for 26 years. clay set the bar high. and anyone who knew him can recall his charming, old-school way of life. he worked in a bipartisan manner, similar to bill lehman, who also passed away. i'm honored to have served with such a remarkable man as e. clay shaw. he will be remembered as a man of sterling character, high ideals, a pillar of our community and a man of this institution. clay is survived by his wife of 53 years, emily, who was always at his side. i ask that all of us here in our chamber take a moment of silence in recognition of the great contributions and sacrifice of a truly dedicated public servant. mr. speaker, i ask for a moment of silence.

ms. ros-lehtinen: thank you, mr. speaker. the speaker pro tempore: are there any further requests for one-minute speeches? for what purpose does the gentleman from texas seek recognition? without objection, the gentleman is recognized for one inute. >> mr. speaker, i rise today to honor dr. clarence brooks, a man dedicated to his family, community and friends. mr. veasey: dr. brooks was a generous man who committed his life serving community. his life spanned 61 years and

two generations. he graduated from howard university in 1975 at the age of 24 and as the youngest member of his class, he was recognized as the number one student medical family practice. >> the house is not in order. the speaker pro tempore: please take your conversations off the floor. mr. veasey: he returned to his hometown of fort worth and joined his family practice, brooks clinic, which was founded by his father and uncle. dr. brooks acted as a medical director of two nursing homes, delivered babies and worked hospital rotations at two local hospitals. in 1976, dr. brooks was named president of the texas sickle cell anemia foundation and talked about the benefits of being tested. he believed in giving back to the community. dr. clarence brooks supported young people, realizing their passion in medicine, music and art. additionally, prohe advised low-cost athletic physicals to he school students so

could join their athletic teams. i benefited from those. he dedicated his medical degree for a benefit to the community. he continued the brooks open door practice to treat regardless whether or not they have the ability to pay, the right so they could have medical treatment. mr. speaker and colleagues, please join me in honoring and remembering dr. clarence brooks whose kind spirit and dedicated service touched the lives of so many in fort worth on his -- in his clinic on evans avenue. he'll be sorely missed. i offer condolences to his fe, his wife, son, two grand sons, one brother, and his ife, three sisters, mary and carol.

mary ann washington and many nieces, nevada use and friends. may he rest in peace, mr. speaker. thank you. the speaker pro tempore: for what purpose does the gentleman from georgia seek recognition? without objection, the gentleman is recognized for one minute. >> thank you, mr. speaker. i rise to offer jackson electric corporation on its 75th anniversary. this year they'll mark 75 years of providing reliable, affordable services. mr. collins: they are the largest electrical cooperative in the state of georgia and the second largest in the united states. while they've grown exponentially since the founding in 1938, it continues offering the original membership fee of only $5. today they serve more than 210,000 meters and benefits its members with rates substantially below state and national average. while i'm sorry to miss the 75th anniversary celebration, i want to extend my congratulations and best wishes to all jackson employees and

members which include myself. may the next 75 years bring even more innovation and continued success in providing affordable energy needed to fuel georgia's economy and i yield back. the speaker pro tempore: for what purpose does the gentleman from new york rise? without objection, the gentleman is recognized for one minute. >> thank you, mr. speaker. as the ranking member on the house foreign affairs committee, i want to associate myself with the remarks of president obama last night in his speech to the nation. i, like everyone else, hope that a diplomatic solution can be found and that somehow between russia, syria and the united states we can find common ground where assad will not have his weapons of mass destruction and will be put under into national control. but if this is possible, i believe it was only possible because there is a credible threat of u.s. military might. mr. engel: and that causes the equation of both the russians and the syrians to think about

the united states. and that's why i believe so strongly that if this falls apart, we need to strike in syria, to let assad know that it is unacceptable to gas a civilian population. it is indeed a war crime. many of us today watched pictures of children foaming at the mouth and dying and shaking and it's just something that will live with me for the rest of my life. i think what the president's proposing is balanced, it's moderate, i will vote yes and i urge my colleagues to do the same. the speaker pro tempore: the gentleman's time has expired. for what purpose does the gentleman from florida seek recognition? without objection, the gentleman is recognized for one minute. >> mr. speaker, the attacks of september 11, 2001, caused many americans to appreciate the danger posed by islamic-inspired terrorism. following september 11, 2001, americans from all walks of life resolved that we would bring swift and harsh justice to

america's enemies. the routing of al qaeda and the taliban following 9/11 showed that terrorists and those who harbored them would pay a steep price for their barbarism. even when some startings -- targets, such as osama bin laden, remained illusive, america continued to press forward patiently until we finally exacted justice. on september 11, 2012, one year ago today, four of our fellow citizens, including our ambassador to libya, were massacred by islamic terrorists in benghazi. the targeting of a diplomat breach recognized standards of civilized behavior that stretched back centuries and yet one year later justice has not been brought to our enemies in benghazi. have we lost our resolve? our enemies hide in plain sight, mr. desantis: speaking with journalists and boasting of their crimes. the victims of the benghazi attack deserve justice, the

american people demand justice. the speaker pro tempore: for what purpose does the gentleman from florida seek recognition? >> i'd like to address the house for one minute, revise and extend my remarks. the speaker pro tempore: without objection, the gentleman is recognized for one minute. >> mr. speaker, i rise today to honor my alma mater, the great university of florida and our incredible women's gymnastics team who earned their first ncaa super six national championship. i'm very proud of our lady gators as they proved that hard work, tireless dedication and passion lead to great things. i know that under the direction of coach feign, many of these young ladies will represent not just the gator nation but our nation, the united states of america, in the next olympics. mr. yoho: ladies, i commend you for your exceptional work, your ethic, your talent and drive in achieving this title. congratulations, lady, and as we like to say back home in gainesville, it's great to be a florida gator and part of the gator nation. i yield back. the speaker pro tempore: the chairman yields back.

are there any further requests for one minutes? under the speaker's announced policy of january 3, 2013, the gentleman from texas, mr. gohmert, is recognized for 60 minutes as the designee of the majority leader. mr. gohmert: thank you, mr. speaker. this is a day of remembrance, it is a solemn day, it is a day that brings back tragic memories for all of us. and then in some ways it brings great hope. we all remember where we were on /11, 2001.

and i know there are some that say, i just can't take seeing what happened that day, i don't want to see any more video. and i would humbly submit, it is important not to forget. to fly planes into buildings, use them as bombs is an act of war. just as dropping bombs in pearl harbor was an act of war. even though there were no boots on the ground at pearl harbor, even though there were no boots on the ground in new york city or washington, d.c., using bombs, whether planes or personally set, they're acts of war. i wasn't aware until this past

been that there's only one time when article 5 of our nato alliance has been triggered. that article of the nato it's a requires -- mandatory requirement and it requires that when any signatory o nato, any member of nato, is attacked in an act of war, then all other members of nato must take it as if they've been attacked in an act of war and go to war against whoever attacked one of the nato members. the only time that's been triggered was 9/11 of 2001 when the united states was attacked. because of the treaty, it's not

a voluntary act on behalf of the member states of nato, it doesn't require the request of . e attacked country but it had gone without my notice, but the countries that were part of nato immediately that day, 9/11/2001, were instantly at war with whatever country attacked us. the problem was, we didn't know who attacked us. up as a result it did end eventually causing other countries to go with us into afghanistan and iraq and actually within about four months of going into afghanistan with less than 500 special ops

and intelligence individuals, the taliban was defeated. and then became our mistake where we added tens of thousands of american troops and allied troops and we became occupiers instead of those that defeated the taliban and left the country back in the hands of those who should have had it. truly evoke the emotions that we had that day. as people were trapped 1,000 -- or so above the streets can the street surface, and had to make a -- above the street surface, and had to make the decision, do i want to burn up in a horrible burning death or do i jump to my death?

i think most all of us resolved that day, including those of us who were not in congress, that it should be our job as a nation to ensure that americans are never put to a choice like that again ever. actions we knew had to be taken. and authorization of use of .ilitary force was passed in the haste to get it passed, to give the president authority to go forward, it had far too much flexibility. so we have been able successfully to rein some of that in in the past months. ore work to be done. but in the middle east, the question is coming up in the last few days from leaders over

there who did not wish to be identified publicly, but the , do the were asked people in your government not understand that on 9/11 you had radical islamists, muslim otherhood people, al qaeda trained by the taliban, but muslim brotherhood at the core that attacked you? and you went to war, you said, against al qaeda, the taliban, and that's the muslim brotherhood that supports them, and you're at war with them. and then do you not remember that that's who you've been at war with? and this administration, the

obama administration, has said they're not engaged in a war on terror, they're only at war with al qaeda. and they mistakenly thought al qaeda was on the run. well, if they were on the run, it was a run toward killing more people. and these leaders in the middle you could sked, if remember that, then why did you come into egypt and demand the ouster of your ally, with whom you had agreements, with whom you were working, with whom you were making sure as best that you could and the egyptian leader mubarak could that he would try to maintain as much peace with israel as possible, so you had all these agreements with him, just like you do with us, and then gaddafi was a bad man, but after 2003, when you innovated -- when you invaded

iraq, it scared him so badly that he became your ally. you had many agreements with him. he and family members, particularly family members, i remember meeting his son here who said he was meeting with people in the administration, was going around capitol hill. i didn't have a meeting with him other than just meeting him. someone introducing him. but this was gaddafi's family. here because after 2003 he had become our ally. and as some in the middle east had pointed out, he was doing everything he could to provide new information with who the terrorists were, he was your partner, you had agreements with him, you had signed agreements, verbal agreements, he was your partner and you turned on him. and even assad, as bad a guy as most people knew he was and is, you had secretary clinton out there saying, oh, assad's a reformer, he's going to be ok.

but we have watched you with the northern alliance, with mubarak, with gaddafi, with all of these people who were your friends, your allies, with whom you had agreements, and you tossed them aside and ran them out of office only to give control to the muslim brotherhood. we do not understand what you're doing and privately we ask among ourselves here in the middle ast, which one of us, your allies, will you turn against next? which one of us will you decide is a throwaway, you don't need us anymore? we're concerned. but we don't want to tell people because we don't want them to take that as a sign they need to be coming after us and us be the ones they discard next. that's no way to have an international policy.

it's no way to be the greatest peacemaker in the world. when your allies worry because they've seen you completely disregard signed agreements, verbal agreements, pats on the back. i mean, you know, when you see the videos of our great secretary of state kerry sitting with assad, having lavish meals and meetings and then all of a sudden he's such a horrendous ogre that you've got to hurt him somehow. and this stuff about america is the only one that can effectively hit syria, so we have to be the ones. why wouldn't it be someone who is in harm's way who actually could perhaps put boots on the ground, go in and destroy

chemical weapons? and for heaven's sake, just see -- just see utin president putin end up playing the high card, being the diplomat, was incredible. it should have been a u.s. administration that said, we're going to do -- actually, what george w. bush did before the iraq war. he tried every diplomat approach he could. he went to the u.n. repeatedly, they got resolutions passed ordering iraq to open up their weapons system, ordering iraq to do the right things which he efused to do. the much aligned george w. bush administration was to go to the

u.n., get agreements, get resolutions passed and then enforce those resolutions. so we've come to a sad day ithin 12 -- now 12 years after 9/11 of 2001 where we're not the ones who proposed diplomacy before we come in and act like a bully in a country in which there was no national security interest, just as our secretary of defense, bob gates, said before this administration his d gaddafi, destroyed air force and made it possible for the rebels, including all e al qaeda tra were immersed -- that were immersed within there.

the four people at the ambassador were killed, others wouned -- wounded, bad decisions have consequences. of course, everyone is familiar with the adage, those who refuse to learn from history are destined to repeat it. the trouble is you cannot learn from history until you learn what the history was. so when someone may be attempted to ask, what difference does it make what happened at benghazi a year ago? what difference does it make? it makes a difference in avoiding repeating history because we couldn't, we could not learn from history because an administration was hiding the truth.

i have come to meet and known surviving family members of those lost at benghazi. they feel like the blood of their loved ones should be enough to require truth. they feel like if there was anything accomplished by the loss of their loved one it is to learn our lesson to make sure it doesn't happen again. after two embassies -- two u.s. embassies were attacked and people died in the late 1990's during the clinton administration, the truth was not effectively and completely learned and we didn't learn properly from those lessons so we have to learn another lesson at benghazi a year ago today, but we can't learn a lesson when we don't know what the truth is.

and it scares our allies. they don't know if they can trust us. members of congress can be a big help in letting allies know, hey, we appreciate the peace you're trying to bring. we appreciate what you're trying to do. let us know if there's something we need to take up, hearings we need to have in congress, an appropriation we need to get rid of because it's doing more harm than good, let us know. it is a wonderful thing to have working relationships with people on the other side of the orld that are in the hot spots . i continue to communicate with and dorothy ow, ty have a young son.

she said he's got so much of ty in him that he is more than a handful. because that's an american hero. that's a man, ty and glen, two men who heard that our people were under attack an rather than go on planning for a campaign trip the next day or sitting down and having meals with others, casually going through conversations, whatever is done, that's not what these two former seals did. and i thought it was outrageous in their memory that when the first navy seal name -- we knew there were two former navy seals, but when the names were eleased, this administration

used the words, and i quote, they were killed while seeking cover. i didn't know ty woods and i didn't know glen doherty. i have known them vy care yussly sense but i know enough seals, former and present, to know that those two former navy seals did not die seeking cover. i knew it instantly when i read that. what an outrage. i know when i was at the army in fort benning, we were not at war. we should have gone to war after iraq -- i'm sorry -- iran over the attack, the act of war in 1979 against our embassy, and i think if we had demanded their return within 48 hours or the entire hell that america could bring to bear would come

own on iran if one hostage was harmed, i always felt during those first few days when they kept saying the students have these hostages, the students have them, that if we had a backbone and made a demand and been willing to back it up they would have released them. and if they had not and we showed we were not a paper tiger or a toothless tiger that we would not have lost the thousands and thousands of americans we have sense. and would not have been able to use as a recruiting tool to recruit radical islamists by telling them, look at what they had in tehran. they fled vietnam. the next incident is 1979. they did nothing. they were totally helpless. begging us to let their people go, that's all they would do. failed rescue attempt which i would submit failed because of the leadership at the white house. and the restraints that were

put on them at the beginning. but there is a price when proper decisions are not made. and that weighs heavy on any president. and i know it weighs heavy on president obama. but for heaven's sake, we have got to learn, it's been 12 years, and a year ago when it was 11 years, our lessons had not been learned and so more americans die in libya? i know that people in this administration mean that they have love and respect and admiration for those who were illed at benghazi, but i would mbly submit that love, respect, admiration that leads to lies and cover-ups are not

actually love, respect and admiration. it is the lowest form of contempt. these heroes deserve better. one of the greatest speeches i ever heard was by a man named barack obama. i heard the speech. it touched me deeply. shouldn't be a red state or a blue state. we shouldn't be black or white. we should be americans. and i want so desperately for this country to come together in that way. and i know it can happen because i saw it happen on september 12 of 2001. i was a judge at the time, and i watched as hundreds of people

came into our town square as .hey did all over the country america came together. there was no red america, blue america. there was not a single hyphenated america in this country on 9/12. we all held hands, embraced, touched in some way as we sang "god bless america" and "amazing grace" and prayed together. nd i looked around, and my eart soared as i saw americans . skin color didn't matter. creed, national origin didn't matter. gender didn't matter. age didn't matter. we were americans standing

together. but you can't have trust, you can't stand together when you now someone next to you is not being truthful, they are being deceptive, they are covering up . so it -- it's heartbreaking that this article today from says teractive, inc., one year after september 11, 2012 terrorist attacks on americans in benghazi, libya, no arrests have been reported but the department said investigators have made very significant progress, unquote. on down it says last month that seal criminal charges have been filed against suspects. they are said to include ahmad, who gave interviews in benghazi with several news organizations

admitting he was at the scene of the attacks but insisting he was not the ringleader. he also said that nobody from the u.s. government had attempted to question him. on further it says, the obama administration continues to keep a great deal of information under wraps, citing an ongoing investigation, national security and other reasons. the secrecy is an ongoing point of contention with republicans in congress. the article goes on to say, tuesday, the house oversight committee sent a letter to secretary of state john kerry demanding the benghazi survivors be made available for interviews with congress or else they may be subpoenaed. according to the letter, the state department told congress on august 23 that, quote, it was not prepared to support the request for transscribed

interviews, unquote. -- transcribed interviews, unquote. if that doesn't change within two weeks, chairman darrell issa, republican of california, said, quote, i'll have no choice but to use compulsary progress, unquote. the f.b.i., the c.i.a., director of national intelligence, defense department, state department, national security agency, have all rejected or failed to answer multiple freedom of information requests made by cbs news as well as appeals of the denials. the agency cite exemptions relating -- related to ongoing investigations of national security. an article today by john sexton talking about it's been nearly a year since the attack which killed four americans in benghazi. during that time various

minute-by-minute accounts of the attack have been published. in addition, the administration's decisions to refuse additional security requests and to revise its talking points after the attack have been examined in detail. further down it says, the general outlines of the c.i.a. effort have been reported. one fact, which has not been highlighted, is that the u.n. arms embargo of libya, which the united states helped pass in 2011, makes shipping weapons in or out of the country, libya, a violation of international law. indeed, the way the u.n. resolution is written, even knowingly allowing such shipments to take place may be violation of the agreement. yet, we keep hearing that guns were being shipped from libya,

perhaps to turkey, perhaps making their way to al qaeda rebels, because the rumor that keeps surfacing is that the turks that we got weapons to were the ones decided where the weapons would go and those did not go to people who had any biding love or even patience with christians, as we have seen as christians have been capitated, killed, maimed in orrendous ways in syria. by those this administration would have been supporting had we bombed assad. this is all tragic. we need to learn from history. but we've got to know the truth to do that. i love darryl issa. but the quote should not be that

if the information is not forthcoming, as he says, i will have no alternative but to consider the use of compulsory process. in the name of chris stevens, sean smith, ty woods and chris daugherty, it should not be considered, it should be done. there should be a select committee to get to the truth. we should use all compulsory methods at our fingertips, including cutting off funding to any federal agency that refuses to comply with proper oversight by congress. because a constitution that can be nullified by one of the three branches is a wortless constitution and if congress can -- worthless constitution and if congress cannot do meaningful oversight and examine what the money we are appropriating is going for, then that money

should not continue to be appropriated to anyone who will not allow knowledge of how it's being spent. and if it is being misused. his has to stop. on 9/12/2001, as a district dge in texas, i was so heartened on 9/12 that we came together. on the congressional delegation trip last week in the middle i , two people, democrats, don't agree much with politically, but i got to know them a lot better and i care deeply about them, they are very, very good people, we have the same desire for this country , freedom, liberty, peace

longevity of life, different ideas of how to get there. i've been encouraged over the last week because. way we can talk honestly -- because of the way we can talk honestly without in-- impugning anyone's motives and try to work toward answers. that's what i saw on 9/12. people wanting to work together. i keep coming back to this fact that people in this administration need to understand and our own republican leadership needs to derstand, we have got to get to the bottom of these matters. e have got to get the truth. jesus said, you'll know the truth and the truth shall set you free. he was talking about a . rticular truth

but sometimes the truth comes out and it hurts the person that was seeking the truth or the people who were seeking the truth. here ould humbly submit it doesn't matter. we just need the truth. and one of the things that people around the world, as i've talked to people around the world, even going back to my summer in 1973 of being an exchange student in the soviet admired the have way the united states would expose the truth no matter how ugly it made it appear. and people admired that. and even in the soviet union, when they were not getting truth privately, they couldn't say it publicly, but privately there were college students that pointed this out. you ally do admire the way

bring out truth and your own government's embarrassed but somehow you managed to keep going on because you deal with truth. one in particular said, i am concerned about my country ecause we don't get the truth. standing and looking at an exhibit in moscow with a couple of russian college students, i as amazed, one of them pointed to the first man in space and i said, wow. and then there was an account that he had been killed during the test piloting a jet in the soviet union and i was surprised that the two russian college students would say, yeah, we know that didn't happen. and i said, you don't believe what your government's telling

you? they said, no, our government frequently does not tell us the truth. well, i didn't know if he was killed in a test -- testing a jet plane or not. but i was struck by the fact that these soviets, college students knew that their government lied to them routinely. and they said, you seem to get to the truth in your country. it's taken a while with watergate but you seem to keep working toward the truth. and we don't do that here. we just have to accept what we're told. believe the expression was -- there's nothing to be done. well, in america there is something to be done. we have got to get to the truth. we owe it to the heroes that have given the last full measure of devotion for this country.

we owe it to those who have put their lives on the line. that means getting to the bottom of the rules of engagement for our military as well. so that we don't have situations as we did, i just read about this summer, a lieutenant, obviously very young, in charge of a road block in -- a security checkpoint. from the account, and i do want to do further investigation to get to the bottom of it, when waving, trying to get the attention of three people on motorcycles to slow down, to stop for the security, they were going fast with no indication of slowing down, the lieutenant ordered shots be fired above their head, they didn't slow down. knowing there had been people killed, americans killed by so many green on blue attacks, knowing that his men were at

risk if they had a bomb, he finally ordered his men to fire on the motorcycle riders, two died, one lived. and that lieutenant is now reported to be doing 20 years in leavenworth. that's just wrong. that's just wrong. when i've been in afghanistan and talked to our soldiers there, soldiers, sailors, marines, and they tell me privately, look, we have a hard time deciding, do i want to risk ust letting someone kill me or going to prison when i get home think? kind of think i'd rather die as a hero and have a nice burial than to be an embarrassment to my family by going to leavenworth when i get back to the u.s.. owe the 9/11 victims, the

9/11 survivors, the benghazi victims, the afghanistan soldiers, sailors, marines that we have lost, we owe those who died in afghanistan and iraq, we owe them the truth. we owe them good rules of engagement so their lives are not needlessly put in jeopardy. because of political gamesmanship. we are owed the truth. and when chris stevens, ambassador chris stevens' last words to his state department colleague, friend, greg hicks, , re, greg, we're under attack everything should have stopped.

the personal hand-picked representative of the united states president was under attack. verything should have stopped. and i really think if it had, and this administration had done everything they could to get help to these people, this president would have won in a huge landslide because he stood up for people, our americans who were in harm's way. a year later we don't even know what he was doing. we don't know what the secretary of state was doing. we can't talk to the c.i.a. agents and they keep getting polygraphed every 30 days to make sure nobody's leaking any information to congress because apparently that would be embarrassing. i mentioned to some people earlier today about the doctrine ex foalation.

it's a -- exfoliation. it's a legal doctrine that applies in ports of law. and whether the court of law or in the court of public opinion, credibility always matters. and we have seen this week a briefing by people who may well have gotten their talking points from the same person or persons who altered the talking points a year ago, falsified them, and handed them to what i believe was an innocent susan rice and ant her out to unknowingly be dupe to spread things that weren't true about a video when it wasn't true at all. how do we know what we get in a classified briefing if we don't know who it was that made true

intelligence into lying intelligence a year ago? we need to know. so we know we can have more faith in what susan rice, john general cretary hagel, dempsey, the things they're saying? where did your information come from? is this somebody that indicated -- created the lies we've gotten in the past or is this a totally truthful source? t matters, it matters. it matters when we have christian navy seals killed in afghanistan and the flag draped -- american flag-draped coffins are mixed with afghan flag-draped coffins and an american chaplain is not even allowed to pray in jesus' name,

ven though a chaplain may be a christian and taught that jesus said, if you ask for it in my name it will be given. being prevented as the first amendment says the federal government should never do from freely exercising his religious beliefs, and in compounding the problem by bringing any mom in afghanistan -- an imam in afghanistan to stand and give a muslim prayer over our seals that includes basically the words that in the name of allah, the merciful forgiver, the companions of hell, where the sinners and infidels are fodder for hellfire, are not equal with the companions of heaven, the muslim companions of heaven, are always the winners. we let an imam speak in his anguage, say words that when

examined appear to be gloating over the dead navy seals that should never have been allowed to take off in that chopper, that should never have been allowed to stay on after the afghans pulled out, the afghan soldiers on the manifest, and put other afghan soldiers on that apparently were disposable to them. it should have stopped there. there were so many places it should have stopped. but we can't get all the answers about that, how it came about, why our best and brightest were put in harm's way. we can't really get to the truth as to why a good man, i've spoken with him personally, privately, i like him very much, leon pennetta, why he would tell people who did not have security clearances that it was seal team six that took out osama bin

laden, why joe biden as vice president, i know he meant no harm to our seal team six, but when he outs a seal team as the one that took out osama bin as one seal called his mother and said, mom, you got to get my name off all of our family stuff online, we've been ted, one parent said his daughter-in-law looked out the window right after vice president biden outed a seal team, taking out osama bin laden, and the marines had provided her a guard because they knew what it meant. it meant this administration had exposed our valiant fighting forces, our seals to danger they hould never have been in. this is a day of remembrance.

but if it is not used to get to the bottom of what happened a year ago and what has happened in the 12 intervening years sense then, find out where we made our mistakes so we can correct them, so that we do not have more boston bombings or attempts like we had in times square that thank god for local police and people paying attention there and thank goodness for a sweaty rear end of a bomber that was prepared to take out a plane and was attempting to do so on christmas. the divine providence as our founders and george washington o often referred to, it is god's overseeing, will not protect us forever when we will

not protect ourselves. god is good all the time, all the time god is good. but it's time to be better friends to our friends. it's time to stand up and be .etter enemies to our enemies it's time that the blood of those who have paid the ultimate sacrifice was honored with the truth, and i hope and pray in the days ahead we will have the resolve as members of congress across the aisle to stand firm and say give us the truth, we don't care who is made to look bad, republican or democrat, let the chips fall where they may. e blood of our devoted

life-giving patriots cries out for truth. let's finally get to it. and with that, mr. speaker, i'd yield back. the speaker pro tempore: the gentleman yields back. under the speaker's announced policy of january 3, 2013, the gentleman from wisconsin, mr. pocan, is recognized for 60 minutes as the designee of the minority leader. mr. pocan: thank you, mr. speaker. on behalf of the progressive caucus, i am here to present a conversation that we would like to share with the american public which is the plight of low-wage worker. the progressive caucus here in congress has worked on this issue for many years. in this last month when members went home and worked in district for the month, we joined many of these low-wage

workers in a day of strike, a way to present their case to the american people. too many people are paid too little for the work they do, and that harms families in this country, that depresses the economy in this country and that makes more people have to go to government assistance because they're simply not paid enough for the work that they're doing. and we all know that the economy has had tough times in the last several years, but things are getting better. the problem is they're only getting better for some. we know that corporate profits have continued to break records while americans are working harder and getting paid less. we know that the stock markets are close to all-time highs, and corporate profits are booming. the $200 billion a year fast food industry is doing extremely well in this country. and workers are more than pulling their weight to help in

these successes. over the past 30 years, the productivity of the american worker has increased 85%. however, the salaries that they get paid simply haven't kept up in pace. mr. speaker, why is the economy stuck? why aren't these people making more money? why is it that while so many who are in the top 1%, the top 10% are doing extremely well but somehow those financial returns haven't trickled down to the rest of the economy? we know the incomes of the top 1% have grown by more than 31% since 2009, just in the last several years. a 31% increase. yet, incomes for the bottom 99% have moved less than 1%. and that inequality is what's causing the real problem that we have. in order to have the economy

truly prosper and truly recover, we have to make sure that all team are benefiting and that -- all people are benefiting and that all people see an additional wage. wages having stagnant for a generation as the minimum wage right now in real terms is a dollar less than it was in 1980. but yet the fastest growing jobs in the economy are also those same jobs that are the lowest paid. fast food, retail, home health, childcare and security jobs are growing, but they don't pay enough to cover the basic necessary its like food, clothing and rent. so how much is enough? many of these people are working across the country at $7.25 an hour. now, if you take that times 2080 which is the equivalent number of full-time hours in a year, that's about $15,080 a year for a full-time worker on minimum wage. for a couple both earning that

that's a little over $30,000. if you have a family, a couple children, you're not even close to the median income of $51,144 in this country. so what makes this number even tougher, when you look at the actual cost of living, the economic policy institute has said that the cost per year of maintaining a modest standard of living for a typical family of four, they figured that out across the country, including in my home city of madison, wisconsin, home of bucky badger. this is what the costs are on average. if you live in madison, wisconsin, your average cost are likely over $75,000 a year for a family of four. that's a breakdown of housing, $10,668. food, another $9,048. childcare for that family, $18,312. transportation, $7,284.

other necessary its, a little over $5,000. and their taxes are about $6,900. now, that's for madison, wisconsin, middle of america. but what about other places? well, milwaukee, a bigger city but still in my state, $74,000 is that expense. in new york city, it's over $94,000 for that same low-wage worker, that same minimum wage worker. and one of the best deals for a major city across america, atlanta, it's still almost $62,000 a year. almost double what average couple could make on minimum wage. now, i know some of the misses out there. minimum wage worker is someone who's living at home, probably going to school, under 18, just for pocket change, right? that's the myth. we heard that more than enough. well, here's the reality. according to the economic policy institute, what is that

minimum wage worker actually -- what's their demographic, what's the profile? well, first of all, 82% -- sorry, 88% are over 20 years of age. 88%. so really it's a small token percent that is that average high school student making minimum wage. a third of them are over 40 years old. so a full third of the lowest paid workers are over 40 years old. the average age, 35 years old. 28% of those lowest paid workers have children. so when we talk about that family of four, we're talking about it because statistics are there. 28% have children. 55% of them are full-timet gh s staying with their parents, making some extra money so they can go buy another c.d. or some new, you know, toy, this in reality is the living sustens for many workers across the

country. and yet if you look at one of the fast food companies, their c.e.o. makes $-- 580 times what that low-income worker is working at that very same company. now, if you just raise that wage to $10.10, you would literally lift six million of these people out of poverty. six million people you could literally have a significant change in their lives. now, let's look at the economy and what this means. we know that while wages have been stagnant, the price of housing in the united states has doubled since the early 1980's. safe, adequate housing has been less and less affordable. let's look at the consequence of that person making $7.25 an hour. first off, it's bad for families. if you can't support your family and your children on that wage, like we just talked about, rent, food, medicine,

housing, the most basic cost that you have are more than they could possibly make on that. second, it's bad for the deficit. low-wage workers often qualify for food stamps and other public assistance while big profitable corporations are forcing taxpayers to subsidize their low wages and burden our economy. in wisconsin alone, there is one employer that has a majority of folks who are on r low-income assistance help program. a majority of folks who should be getting that support from their job instead are on our public assistance program for health insurance. now, thankfully the affordable care act will make sure more and more people in this country have access to country, but the reality is we are subsidizing those people right now each and every one of us because those big corporations that are having record profits and c.e.o.'s making hundreds of

times what the low-wage worker are doing well and yet we're paying for it. also, it's bad for the economy. that means in the local economy, if you don't have people spending money in this current economy, that's what's holding us back. i truly believe a rising tide lifts all boats. if we increase that wage, whether it be $9 that the president proposed, $10.10, $15, whatever wage we ultimately have a debate about, you raise that, that money that that low-wage worker has, it's not going to be invested. it's not going to be held in savings. it's very likely going to be spent in the economy just to get by on the day-to-day expenses. but that builds the entire economy. if they're able to occasionally go to a movie or maybe go to a restaurant, not the fast food one they work at, and have a dinner, that's going to help stimulate the economy for everyone. so again, we hold back our economy by those low-wage workers not making more.

finally, i think what this country is about is opportunity. this takes away the opportunity to grow the middle class from the middle out and from the bottom up. how do we help those people get that chance, that opportunity for their family that many of us have but they're not able to because they're stuck at that job at $7.25 an hour, yet they have the expenses we all have? now, at the same time, during this c.e.o. pay has skyrocketed. we know that the average c.e.o. between 1978 and 2012, their compensation grew, according to an article from huffington post, 876%. during the same period, worker compensation grew 5.4%. the income equality is a huge problem in this country, and if we don't address it at some point these stagnant wages that haven't kept up with the cost of living, haven't kept up with the cost of housing, we are going to have a real and

serious problem for our economy for each and every person. in fact, the average c.e.o. right now makes 354 times what that low-wage worker makes. 354 times. that fast food worker, their c.e.o. made 580 times. but we have to make sure that everyone prospers in this country and everyone prospers in this economy. we have to make sure that families can cover their basic needs, that we can lessen the need for public assistance and help reduce our deficit. we can put more money in the pockets of workers instead of corporate c.e.o.'s and thus more money in the pockets of our small businesses that are going to benefit when they're spending that additional money. and we can lift up our local economies and by doing that lift up our local communities. having safer, better, healthier communities by people having more money. now, that's why the members of the progressive caucus stood with those low-wage workers in this last month in august when they took a day of strike.

they didn't go to work or for part of the day, the whole day, to illustrate the problems that they're facing, and we across the country stood with them to support a fair wage for a full day's work. in more than 50 cities across the country, members of the progressive caucus and other democrats joined with these low-paid workers to make sure we talk about their stories. i'd just like to read a couple of quotes from people who participated in this. one was a gentleman from milwaukee, wisconsin. 45 years old, low-paid worker. this is what he said. quote, i'm a maintenance man at mcdonald's. when my grandbabies come over on the weekend i spend on them. making sure that they eat and are comfortable. i eat mcdonald's the last two weeks of the month because i have no food left. that's the america that i think we value, the land of opportunity so that every family can prosperity per -- prosper?

let me read another one. this is from a worker in new york city, andhe said, some days i've been up for 48 ndd' makes billio that. that person who very 28% of th pinimum of the low-paidat? t work? this said wne increasse theork the earning a at home. this is into whats across theune to have role model f many of us, who ofo or outside the c progressive real lead many years that wee jan thlks ank yo aboutord to suppor they're paidrole hlight h so onto

illinois e chanting, we can't mcdons of course the hours a weekage make around $31 te c.e.o. in divide that out, two of work on the firs the wor. . one gentleman who was il making m thenimumiwage our.

you know, an unless you k isn't workers, a little bookn conjunction with visallsthey're going to help th workerst hoto they have a budge can't plan to work at mcdo'snd $2,060 for theth and then they h recommended monthly budget. now, autou live with some,th for two bueting that way,sgoi to get ye and remarkably they budget $20

exists only in some you are workers who often turn to government assistance just to make ends meet. are p that have often been demonized by our colleagues on the republican side of the aisle for going forg as for medicaid. you know, lots of wealthy americansn sof oucolleagues suge ought to test them for drug use but i posit today that the real ood giants and all those

poverty-wagpl refuse to wage. wage.ng e xpayers, all the rest of the taxpayers subsidize them because they don't pay a living their employees are often working their tails off, often to the government forhe so i would -- help. so i would argue that it's the wal-mart's and the mcdonald's that really depend on these welfare programs and if you want to divide the world in takers and makers, t companies and those c.e.o.'s are the real taker haven't -- do i have time? i wanted to give a couple more facts. because this hasn't always been true in america. these poverty wages. between 1948 and 1973 the productivity of u.s. workers 93.7%..8% and wages rose

they went up together. workers benefited from increases in productivity and that's true of the wages of the managers and bosses and c.e.o.'s as well. wages went up. between 1973 and 2011, productivity rose 80.1% but ages rose only 4.2%. so you saw that even though productivity went up, wages stayed essentially flat. median household income today, adjusted for inflation, is at 1989 levels. and it's not coincidental that during that same time, union membership dropped from about 1/3 of the private sector work force to about 6.5% today. nor is it coincidental that

almost all the growth in income and, yes, we are richer today per capita than ever before, than ever before, we're the richest point in our country, but that growth in income has gone really especially to the top .1%, to the very richest americans. all of that growth in income has gone to the top. and so i think this is not just bad from the workers that we were out with this summer. this is really bad for our economy. if we want to have a robust middle class, where people can go out and buy things and create demand and thus create jobs, they would be the real makers. they would be the people who could revive our economy and i

think that the essentials here are a living wage and the rights of workers to be able to collectively bargain so that they can defend themselves together, represent themselves together and get a decent middle class life in this richest country in the world at its very richest stage right now. i'm going to yield back and maybe we can have a conversation. mr. pocan: absolutely. thank you, representative schakowsky. in fact, when you talked about that, according to the academic policy institute, the average family expense for a typical family in chicago, $73,055. that's $600 allotment for rent is hardly enough. that $20 for health care will get you a bottle of orange juice and maybe some band-aids but i don't know if i'd call that health care. ms. schakowsky: it's like flossing and praying and that's about it. mr. pocan: you're not going to get much. i really appreciated what you

said about the fact that that business owner can benefit. i've been a small business owner for 25 years. when i opened a small business, i had hair. it's been a long time. and i can tell you that when you treat your employees well, everyone benefits. when they make more money, that helps, they're invested in the company, they're able to support their family. if they have health insurance they're able to make sure that everyone's healthy in their family. if your family's good, they're good. there are many benefits. but when you get to the factor of almost what you call agreed, when you get to 580 times of the salary of that low-wage worker, like the c.e.o. of mcdonald's makes, that's a problem across the country. so i really appreciate what you brought up and specifically your example from chicago, because in madison, we're slightly higher, about $75,000 a year. had when they broke out those expenses, they're talking about housing of about $10,668,

transportation, $7 ,200. food, $9,000. taxes, $6,900. it's impossible to live on that minimum wage. and yet as you said, you were with a bunch of people who are adults, who are working at these places. and again, according to the economic policy institute, 88% of the people are over 20 years old. the average age of a minimum wage worker is 35 years old. so the myth that's out there about that low-income worker is simply not true. i wonder if you might be able to just share a little bit more, based on the years you've been here, about exactly what some of the costs to the local government and to state government and to the federal government, that comes out of these workers having to come for subsidies. because as you know, the various programs that so often get attacked, sometimes people on the other side of the aisle, like you said, the snap program, they're trying to provide almost

$40 billion cut to in the next budget if they had their way. they'd be even less available for the people that need the subsidy thanks to those companies. i wonder if you could share a little more about that. i yield. ms. schakowsky: i'll tell you, i have three times now done the snap challenge or the food stamp challenge and now the average snap benefit is $4.50 a day. almost everyone on the snap program is on there for less than a year. it's been described to me by a former snap recipient as a trampoline. nobody wants to do that and they certainly don't want to line up at a food pantry and those cupboards are really having a problem being filled, but it's hard to do. you can get can the calories but getting the nutrition and the health that you need from the food, that's really -- that is really hard to do. .

so people are reluctant to apply for these benefits. i wish they weren't. but there's still some stigma attached to that. i want to encourage people, by the way, if they are eligible, they should get that for the sake of their children and their own health. but states are struggling right now to meet their medicaid budgets because there are so many people who are not getting health care through their employer or can't afford it on their own, and so they are turning to state and local governments. and we're finding that those governments are having to decide about fixing the roads, hiring teachers, or being able to provide these kinds of benefits. so the same kinds of decisions that individual poor people are having to make, governments are aving to make right now.

but if they were paid a decent wage for all the hours they are willing to put in, to get up early and get on that bus, let me just tell you, i went into the store, into mcdonald's, with some of the workers. here's among -- they had six things they were asking for. listen to the modest requests. stop requiring employees to pay out of pocket if their cash registers are short. two -- show respect to your employees, less shouting and insulting language. three -- air-conditioning in the kitchen. four -- permit employees to drink water when the kitchen gets too hot. that one threw me for a big loop. they said no, they're telling you, get back to work you can't have a drink of water. they put it on paper, it's not made up.

five -- provide living wages. listen to this one. stop requiring employees to pay out of pocket for food returned by customers. the whole event was very peaceful. no one at mcdonald's was there to accept it, they left it -- these demands on the counter. the other little point i want to make, this was during the week we were commemorating the 50th anniversary of the march for jobs and freedom, march on washington, and the march sought to, quote, give all americans a decent standard of living, unquote, and called for a minimum wage of $2 an hour. now if you adjust that $2 an hour request from 1963, that would equal $15.26 an hour, just

about what the workers are asking for right now. so the least that we could do here in this congress is raise the minimum wage in this country, which hasn't been raised for a long time, you probably have that number, i don't remember how long it's been. but a $7.25 minimum wage in this country just doesn't make it. i also believe we need to do more to guarantee workers the right to organize. i believe that organized labor helps to deliver us a middle class and i think that workers organized will be able to rejuvenate our middle class and make these demands, these just and reasonable demands a reality. thanks. >> thank you, representative schakowsky and again for your

many years of advocacy on behalf of the low wage workers. mr. pocan: one of the things i think about, my entire adult life is the fact that they call it job creators. i like to think of the consumer as a job creator. when i have someone buying from my business, that allows me to hire someone. if we help people have more money in their pocket, they're the job creators. each and every one of those people is the job creators we're talking about. we've been joined by another strong progressive, representative nolan of minnesota. i know that he also has been an outspoken advocate when it comes to the plight of low-wage workers. i'd like to recognize and yield time to representative nolan of northern minnesota. mr. nolan: i'd like to begin by commending and complimenting the gentleman from wisconsin, congressman pocan, for the work you're doing here in highlighting this important issue. there's so much to be said, one

is not sure where to begin. you provide a lot of the facts and a lot of the information and some of the other members here. i'd like to just, you know, speak to the issue in a more general sense. but to be sure, what's happening in this country has to be reversed. the rich are getting richer, the poor are getting poorer, and the middle class is getting crushed. corporations, banks are sitting on trillions of dollars. i'm a business guy. if there's a business opportunity out there, you invest in it. but if the middle class is broke, can't buy the goods and services, you're just going to sit on your cash. you're not going to invest it. if there aren't customers for your product. so this is not only just good for middle america, and for poor people, raise the minimum wage

is going to be so important for our whole economy. you know, when i started my entry into the employment market, the ratio of executive compensation to that of the worker was 25 to one. i just read recently today that the ratio is 273 to one. to my point, you know how the rich are getting richer and the poor are getting poorer, we've just seen some numbers on the percentage of income that's earned by the upper 1% and the upper 10%. they're earning all the money. all the revenue. i would like to suggest that everybody, if they haven't done it yet, take a look at the bill moi yers film done in milwaukee, wisconsin, following the lives of two families, it was remarkable, hats off to bill

moyer for his vision in understanding how valuable a film like this could be. because he followed two families, good families, hardworking families, playing by all the rules, doing everything right, going to church on sunday, not living extravagantly, no speedboats in their driveway. living in modest housing in wonderful modest communities, and he followed them as they were entering into the employment market. 2 years ago. and they had good-pay -- 22 years ago. and they had good-paying manufacturing jobs in the $25 to $30 range. they had benefits and retirement and both families they ended up, all the mother, the fathers, end up losing their jobs. not through a failure to show up for work. but because tax and trade policies had shifted those

manufacturing jobs overseas to another country. so through no fault of their own they found themselves unemployed. well, they struggled and over a period of months, they managed to find other jobs. but now they were back down in the $12 to $16 range and in many cases they lost benefits. and -- but they were content. they just took an extra job here and there, wherever they could, and wouldn't you know those jobs ended up being moved overseas because of our tax and trade policies and this time they had an even harder time finding employment. and all the -- you could see all the stresses, moyer was going back and visiting these people. every year or two. and recording what was happening in their lives. and you could see the stress that was being created. and one of the families, oh,

gosh, to see these two young kids in love in their youth, then to see the young man in -- go into a tailspin of depression, being unable to provide for his family and the conflict and it ended up in divorce and he's hanging out with buddies at the end trying to pick up odd jobs here and there, his wife is living, you know, in an apartment, a spare bedroom, with a friend and the other couple, the guy is out picking up garbage. then he showed what happened, they all lost their homes. ok. it showed what happened to the entire community. all the homes, they were boarded up, the neighborhood was in shambles, because they had all been foreclosed. it was just a classic example of how we have failed these people. and in my judgment, here's what we did. back in the -- in our parents'

time, at least my edge ago. maybe your grandparents. the average life expectancy in this country was 47. today it's pushing 80. remarkable progress. especially allen and me, the two oldest guys here in the freshman class. then we -- then we did a whole bunch of things. the rivers and leaks were catching on fire, acid rain was destroying the forests and the lakes and i had people in my district whose lives were already -- at 25 and 30 they were working in boat factories and for want of ventilation their lungs were full of fiber glass and they couldn't breathe. anyway, we did all these things, set up some good rules for environmental protection, set up good rules for health and safety, we incest sessed on medicare for our -- insisted on medicare for our eld

workers comp and unemployment comp and put a tremendous amount of burden for all of that on our business community. our manufacturing sector. i know about that. i spent the last 2 years of my -- 32 years of my life in manufacturing. but then we said to the manufacturers, oh, by the way, now you're going to have to go compete with people in countries where they don't have to do any of that. it wasn't fair. it couldn't work. and so i'm not necessarily faulting corporations for moving overseas. but i am faulting the people responsible for the public policies that allowed that to happen. so the first thing that we have to do here, in my judgment, is to raise the minimum wage. it's not a cure-al. but it's a good beginning. to put some money back in the hands of low income and middle

america. but there's so many other things that we need to do. i just learned in one of our committees, they were going to spend $89 billion in afghanistan this year. and -- on infrastructure projects. i read in the "times," one 50 ct was $299 million, brave young american men and women lost their lives securing the area for this hydroelectric project and do you know for every one that's killed, there's another six or seven maimed or harmed for life this project has now been abandoned because the locals kept blowing it up as fast as we could secure the area richest and most powerful people and build it. we need to start reinvesting in in this country pay a much lower our own infrastructure. percentage of their income in our bridges. taxes than the average person. our roads. our communities. they just did an analysis in our educational system. minnesota here a while back, the investing in our people. average person making between we're going bankrupt here.

on these wars of choice. $30,000 and $50,000, paying 31% of their income in a variety of and this nation building abroad. taxes. social security, income, real we're destroying what made america a great country a middle estate, gas taxes, the whole class, a place where there was works. the average millionaire is only opportunities for everybody. paying 13%. if you showed up and wanted to that's not fair. work hard there was a job for nobody is suggesting here we you. i submit in my generation if you should penalize the rich for their success. wanted to be a failure, you had on the contrary, we want to have a plan. everybody to be successful in this country. there were just so many jobs and but we also want everybody to so many good-paying jobs and so pay their fair share. so there's no one easy, simple many opportunities. and that's what we're losing. and that's what we have to get solution to what we're looking at here but we can start with back to in this country. raising the minimum wage and then let's go after this tax and i think we can start by policy, let's go after this trade policy, let's institute raising the minimum wage. some fairness in this country, and so i am so thrilled to be let's rebuild the middle class, able to join you and my let's restore the american colleagues in urging the dream. where there's opportunity for leadership here to bring this measure before the congress. everyone. ern who is willing to go to let us have the debate. work, play by the rules, work hard and go to work every kay. let us have a vote on it. let us see if we can't move this that's the america we grew up with. that's the america we want to country forward. leave behind when we pass on to let us see if we can't do the big country. thank you. something for the middle class mr. pocan: thank you, here.

then lets follow up that with a representative nolan, thank you for your many years of devotion good, healthy debate on what kind of trade policy are we to helping raise the economy for going to have? is it going to be a tote -- is every single person so we can really have access to the it going to be totally free or opportunity you talk about. is it going to be fair trade we have a lot to do in congress, i think we'll have a chance to that recognizes the talk about trade and other accomplishments we have made policies later this year, but here with a determination to you're right, the first and most keep moving that progress fair thing we could possibly do forward? and let's have a good look at that we have control in this room to do is to raise the the tax policies too. the fact is, anyone who has minimum wage. examined it knows clearly the the president's asked for it, the democrats have asked for it, it's time we have a vote that we can make sure. they aren't living in poverty working two jobs or three jobs to try to get by because that's what happened. i would like to recognize another colleague who has spoken out in his district and across his home state of california not only on behalf of workers and low wage workers but also as someone who is a strong environmentalist and i know he wants to share some thoughts on that. i'd like to yield some time to representative low wan that

will. mr. lowenthal: thank you for raising this issue that's a crisis to our working families in america. a crisis as was just pointed out, the tremendous crash and burden on the middle class who are rapidly becoming low-wage workers because of our policies in this country. and i agree completely that the first step that we have to do is to really raise the minimum wage and have that discussion and really provide and demonstrate that this congress really cares about working people in america. that's the first thing. but i'm also glad that you've given me an opportunity this other issue that is not really directly related to this issue. and that has to do with envme and i just want to report to my colleagues that later this month , th intergovernmental panel on climate change, which is the leading international climate i body with over 195-member countries, it's going to be releasing a report which will predict that the planet's

average global temperature will increase by more than two degrees celsius over the next century. not only does this report issue new warnings about continued warming but it asserts that the scientific community can now claim with 95% certainty that the warming is a byproduct of human activity. yet in this house of representatives, the majority party continues to ignore the warnings of the scientific community. over the past two years this congress has done absolutely nothing to address climate change. republicans in the house voted to overturn e.p.a.'s scientific findings that climate change endangers health and the environment, they voted to block u.s. participation in international climate change negotiations and they voted to stop the agencies from even preparing for the effects of climate change. just yesterday republicans on the energy and commerce committee revealed that they are

preparing to introduce legislation aimed at preventing the e.p.a. from limiting the amount of co-2 emitted from coal-fired power plants. this is a mistake. mr. speaker, we need to be moving ahead with policies aimed at encouraging alternative sources of energy, preparing for the worst effects of climate change. we need policies that are not written by the coal lobby. we must take action and i must remind you, just as you've raised these issues about the effects of the economy on our middle class and our lack of preparation of working families, that the people that are most affected are the people that have the least ability to deal with climate change and they are working americans. it is all related, we must protect americans and the way we do it is not only to acknowledge some of the effects of climate change, but really to give working families the tools that they need so that they can survive and more than survive, they can prosper in this society.

that's what this is all about. i thank you for raising this issue and i'm glad to show support. thank you. mr. pocan: thank you, representative lowenthal. and on behalf of the procombressive caucus, thank you for -- progressive cause, thank you for sharing some of the issues we're work on. we're fightingor for every single person across the country. we want everyone to have access to democracy. we need to have meaningful campaign finance reform from the citizens united decision to every single candidate for congress and how we fund our campaigns. we need to make sure every single person has a right to vote in this country. something that because of the recent supreme court decision isn't guaranteed. but one thing the progressive caucus today really wanted to highlight, and we really i think have made the case, why we joined so many workers across the country in the month of august who are getting paid minimum wage, who are barely getting by, who aren't getting treated fairly in their workplace, we literally have too many people who are paid too little for the work they do. as representative nolan said, the rich are getting richer, the

poor are getting poorer. it's not a talking point, it's the facts. it's the actual statistics that are out there. if we're going to help people support their families, if we're going to help support the economy, if we're really going to take people off of government assistance, the very ones who are working and yet having to be on government assistance, because of the low wage they make, there's a simple answer and that's increase the minimum wage. and that's what we came here today to talk about, mr. speaker. on behalf of the progressive caucus, we appreciate having this time to talk about the plight of the low-wage worker, why we need to raise the minimum wage and i want to yield the remainer time back to the speaker. the speaker pro tempore: the gentleman yields back. does the gentleman have a motion? mr. pocan: i would move to adjourn, mr. speaker. the speaker pro tempore: the question is on the motion to adjourn. those in favor say aye. those opposed, no. the ayes have it. the motion is adopted. accordingly the house stands

adjourned until

twe twelve they say the leadership used this continuing resolution to insist on withholding funding from health care, to defund obamacare new york their words. the leadership decided to do a bit of procedural legislative gambit where the c.r., the continuing resolution is not going to defund it directly but there's going to be an attached concurrent resolution that would withhold funds and what's happened -- what would happen

is it would be sent to the senate and the senate would have to vote first on defunding the health care law bill and if they had an up or down vote on that and it was rejected or accepted, it would likely be rejected, only then would they be able to vote on the bill. some conservatives are fine with this but many others are balking at this and that's why the leadership has had to delay a vote on this until next week to see if they can get the votes at all with democrats unified. >> it seems like a complex procedure on this dual approach. what led house leadership to go this route? >> well, they've been pretty clear privately if not publicly, that they do not want to risk a government shutdown after september 30 because of a fight over defunding the health care law because the obama administration has made clear

they're not going to give in on this issue. and so the party leadership did not want to go directly after the law as part of the continuing resolution. they may make an attempt to xact, you know, some defunding of the health care law or delaying the implementation of the law in the debt ceiling debate but they didn't want to use this initial spending fight leading up to the september 30 deadline to do so. but that's not winning approval from many conservatives who want to fight on every possible issue. >> as house leadership works on their members, there are reports that there's a meeting tomorrow between majority leader reid, mitch mcconnel, the minority leader, nancy pelosi and the houselkbo t issu

to talk about the c.r. and the debt ceiling. what's expected to happen at that meeting? >> i think we can expect at least that the republican leadership could get a sense from the senate leadership on whether they would accept this package they've crafted because all harry reid would have to do is say, fine, we'll have the show vote on the health care law if you send us a fairly clean continuing resolution without adding other cuts or policy riders to it. they could come out of the meeting with that intact. the administration on the sec issue of the debt ceiling, which could need to be raised by mid october, according to the treasury department, that is another issue entirely because of course president obama has vowed not to negotiate over that and he's getting support from senate democrats like majority leader

harry reid. it's unclear what progress they could possibly make on the debt ceiling issue tomorrow, given those parameters but we might see something on the c.r., the immediate budget cut. >> we invited russell berman to join us to talk initially to talk about the actual bill on the house floor now. another bill dealing with the implementation of the health care law. what would this particular bill do? >> this would go after a part of the law, basically the health and human services said in july that they would allow individuals who want to receive subsidies under the law to self-attest their income, basically just to trust them that what they sayer that income is and whether they're eligible and this is related to the delaying of the employer mandate which was -- which would have factored into who would have been eligible for subsidies but of course the

employer mandate is being delayed by one year but the vedge mandate is not. the house republicans, what they want to do and what this bill does is require h.h.s. to have a program to verify the income eligibility of recipients of these subsidies. so of course the democrats are just going to go after them saying that they are once again trying to repeal or unravel the health care law, but republicans will argue that this is simply trying to protect against fraud and trying to make a fix to the law based on what the h.h.s. has id they're going to do >> russell berman, follow him on thehill.com and on twitter. following postponement of debate on the continuing resolution, house minority whip steny hoyer released a statement: --

>> 15 years ago, book tv made its debut on c-span . >> love, death, and money, these are the three main human concerns. we're all keen students of love. we are fascinated by every aspect of the matter in theory and in practice. maybe not quite as much as ken starr is. >> and since then we've brought you the top nonfiction books and authors every weekend, nrn 9,000 authors have appeared on book tv including presidents. >> i wanted to give the reader a chance to understand the process by which i made decisions. the environment in which i made decisions. the people i listened to as i made decisions. nd this is not an attempt to

rewrite history or fashion a legacy, it's an attempt to be part of the historicalnarytive. >> also the supreme court justices. >> every single justice on the court has a passion and a love for the constitution and our , ntry that is equal to mine then you know that if you accept that as an operating truth, which it is, you understand that you can disagree. >> and noble prize winners. >> for me what's interesting is negotiation of a moral position. do no harm. love somebody. respect yourself. all of that is reduced, simplified notions. the philosophers have spent their lifetime trying to imagine what it is like to live a moral life, what morality is, what existence is, what

responsibility is. >> we visited book fairs and festivals around the country. >> and book tv is live at the annual "l.a. times" festival of books on the campus of ucla in west los angeles. >> there's our signature programming, in depth each month. >> if you say to a child almost anywhere in this country, i've been to schools all over the country, more than 600, once upon a time, the child will stop and pause and listen. now you better cash the check. you better have more to say after that but that phrase is still magical. and every week, "afterwords." >> my father in the diplomatic service, his job was to be press attache in belgrade my mother wanted me to be born in prague, where her mother was. i was born in prague, then we went back to belgrade. then my father was recalled in 1938 and he was in czechoslovakia when the nazis

marched in on march 15, 1939. >> since 1998, book tv has shun over 40,000 hours of programming and it's the only national television network devoted exclusively to nonfiction books every weekend. throughout the fall, we're marking 15 years of book tv on c-span2. >> c-span, we bring public affairs events from washington directly to you, putting you in the room at congressional hearings, white house events, briefings and conferences and offering pleat gavel-to-gavel coverage of the u.s. house, all as a public service of private industry. we're c-span, created by the cable tv industry 34 years ago and funded by your local cable or satellite provider. and now you can watch usen o-- watch us in h.d. >> on the anniversary of the september 11 terrorist attacks, congress today looked at homeland security threats like cyberattacks. former secretary tom ridge

testified before the senate homeland security committee joined by former ranking member of house intelligence jane harman and retiredoastuard commandant admiral thad allen. this is about two and a half hours. >> welcome one and all for this important hearing. today marks the 12th anniversary of 9/11. today, i was reminded, 12 years ago exactly of what was going on in our lives. it's a very poignant day, a sad day, but a day that is not ithout hope. not only a day we lost a lot of our fellow americans but a day that brought a sense of unity that we don't often see in this

town and in this country. in the wake of really of a terrible tragedy. there's going to be a moment of silence a bit later here in the capitol, but i'm going to ask us to start this hearing with a miami of silence, then i'll introduce the witnesses and begin. if you'll pause now for a moment of silence. k4rr > thank you. one of the things that our chaplain, some of you know our chaplain, barry black, retired navy admiral, he encourages taos pray for wisdom, each and every one of us, in our own way. that's probably a good thing for us to remember on this day. this anniversary also provides us with an important opportunity to think about all

the efforts we have take ton secure our country since that fateful day as well as the challenges that lie ahead. with us today, we have a remarkable group of witnesses who shared their thoughts, their counsel on what we've accomplished since 9/11 and the future of homeland security. we're honored that each of you are here and thank you so much for joining us and for your extraordinary service to our country. of homeland security, while we agree it can do a better job in certain areas, we should not forget about the remarkable progress that's been made in keeping america safer since tom ridge helped to open that new department lo those many years ago. there's no doubt that we are safer today than we were then despite the greater threats to

our nation and well being. i'd like to take a moment to recognize some accomplishments. we have a more risk-based, intelligence driven airline safety, screening passengers roughly four days before they board an aircraft. we improved our preparedness for and ability to respond to disaster while cutting red tape at the federal level. we saw the fruits of these efforts following the boston marathon bombings and also the natural disasters that struck my part of the country, including hurricane sandy. we've increased security of our nation's borders to historic levels through manpower and resources and built up cybersecurity capabilities to work with the private sector and federal government agencies in preparing for and responding to and mitigating against the ever-growing number of sign attacks. is there still room for more

improvement? i would say, you bet there is. one of my favorite saying is the road for improvement is always under construction. that's true in this venue as well. one way the department can improve is ding a better job of preparing for tomorrow's threats today. we do a pretty good job in this country of fighting the last war and preparing for the last type of attack but we must do a better job of preparing for the ext type of attack we'll face. today we can hardly go a day without reading about a cyberattack or hearing about a cyberattack in the news, often many attacks. to respond to the challenge of ever-changing threats, we need a department of homeland security that's flexible and ready to adapt when necessary. sometimes we just need to use some commonsense. if a program is not work, we shouldn't just keep throwing good money after bad.

rather we must work smarter with our limited resources and find ways to get ever better results for less money or the same amount of money. that's why dr. coble and i are holding this hearing and a series of others today. at the beginning of the year he suggest wed focus on re-authorization, we've never done a re-authorization of the department of homeland security and he suggested a way to do that would be to do a year-long series of hearings that are relevant to the department and its if you thinks and this is one of those hearings, a really important one. we're doing this top to bottom review of the department to learn where it succeeded and where it comes up short. this information will help taos better focus our scare resources on what works. as the committee conducts its review process, we'll be looking to ensure that the department is making smarter acquisition decisions, developing even more agile and capable work force and improving its financial management systems. this review will also look at

how we can strengthen the defenses of our homeland against very sophisticated and highly agile threats. one of the most important things we can do to improve homeland security is to come together to pass cybersecurity legislation either in pieces or together as a comprehensive approach for our country. the threat is too great and the consequences of inaction are too severe to do nothing. enacting a thoughtful, comprehensive cybersecurity policy has not been easy, as we know. but we have a shared responsibility, both democrats an republicans, house and senate, government and industry, to get this legislation across the goal line and into the end zone, hopefully this year. we already saw many of the different parties come together to pass comprehensive immigration reform in the senate a few months ago. i don't agree with everything in that bill. don't y colleague here

agree with everything either. but i believe it's vastly prefer to believe our current immigration system, the failings of which undermine both national and economic security. it's my hope that the house will pass its own version of immigration reform so we can go to conference and make it even better and pass the kind of historic piece of legislation our country needs. as we remember 9/11 and we discuss the challenges that lie ahead, we must seek to recapture that spirit of unity that prevailed 12 years ago today. and we need that if we're going to succeed in making not just the department of homeland security stronger over the next 10 years but -- but our nation stronger going forward into the future. i lock forward to working with dr. coburn, with our colleagues, even senator johnson who is so good about coming to these hearings and asking questions.

we look forward to working with the administration and the witnesses and a whole lot of other folks who will help us to do this job. with that said, i'll turn it over to dr. coburn for nizz comments. >> thank you, senator. i have a statement i'll place in the record. i have a lot of concerns with homeland security, one of the editorials in the "new york times" today talked about the lack of focus on multiple committees, the focus on multiple committees instead of single committees of jurisdiction and i know it's difficult for homeland security to answer all the questions from the 88 different committees and subcommittees that they have to answer to and that's one of the things we ought to be about changing because our frustrations are we can't ever get answers and i'm sure it's not always intentional that we don't get answers. sometimes it is. but it's because we're asking so much information all the time where the people who have responsibility to homeland security can't do their job.

because they're busy answering questions of members of congress. the disorganization. the other concern i have with homeland security is it's turned into an all-hazards agency which was never its intent. it's abandoned risk-based policies putting money where risk is rather than money where risk isn't. the politicians in washington have very much accounted for that. in my opening statement that i'll put in the record, there are large number of areas where we are in -- where we are incompetent. whether it is in materials of either metrics or effectiveness and we have not held the hearings that are necessary to straighten that out. i would welcome all of our panelists, thank you for your service in multiple areas for our country and hope that you can give us some wisdom. i've been through your testimony, hope that you can give us some wisdom, thousand

streamline and not undermine the goal and the long-term changes that need to be made in homeland security to get us back to a risk-based agency instead of a grab bag of political benefits agency. the final point i would make is the transparency is important. job you had, lt governor ridge, in terms of bringing these agencies together, we've had good homeland security directors but -- and secretaries. but the idea that you can effectively manage thising and we have all the data to say we're not effectively managing it system of my hope today out of this hearing is that we'll hear some great ideas on how you change the structure and the final point i'd make is we

have 15 open, 15 of the top 17 positions at homeland security open and to my knowledge we only have two nominees pending in that area. and i may be wrong on that, that's my guess. enge we have two. so leadership matters. and having people in positions instead of acting people in positions is very different in terms of accomplishing the goals that need to be fleshed in homeland security. i welcome you, thank you, and look forward to your testimony. >> thank you. thanks, dr. coburn. at 11:00, there's going to be a gathering of members of congress, for member of congress, i think on the east steps of capitol, for an observance. my hope is to work right up to just before that time and hopefully we'll be in position to adjourn, if we're not, i may ask you to adjoush briefly and come back within an hour.

i know at least one of you has tight schedule. all right. i want to briefly introduce our first -- not so briefly the first witness. tom ridge and i came to the house together in 1982. 30 years ago today we were both in our mid 20's. maybe early 20's. but we ended up serving on the -- we served in the vietnam war together. he had a real distinction. just a hero. and very modest about it. we ended up on the banking committee together. i think in the 102nd congress we ended up leading the banking committee, we had a subcommittee on economic stabilization and people said to me, tom, in the past years, what did you accomplish in those two years that you and top ridge led that committee? we lead the foundation for the longest running economic expansion in the history of the country. we stepped down from our responsibilities. in 1993 we were on our way to