the speaker pro tempore: on this vote the yeas are 190. the nays are 223. the motion is not adopted. the question is on the passage of the bill. those in favor say aye. those opposed, no. the ayes have it. ms. waters: a recorded vote. request a recorded vote. the speaker pro tempore: for what purpose does the gentlelady seek recognition? ms. waters: to seek a recorded vote. the speaker pro tempore: those in support of a request for a recorded vote. a sufficient number having arisen, a recorded vote is ordered. members will record their votes by electronic device. this is 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 292, and the nays are 122. the bill is passed. without objection, the motion to reconsider is laid on the table.

the unfinished business is the vote on the passage of house joint resolution 99, on which the yeas and nays are ordered. the clerk will report the title of the joint resolution. the clerk: house joint resolution 99, joint resolution relating to the disapproval of the president's exercise of authority to suspend the debt limit as committed under section 1002-b of the continuing appropriations act, 2014, on october 17, 2013. the speaker pro tempore: the question is on the passage of the joint resolution. members will record their votes by electronic device. this is 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.]

you ou you you the speaker pro tempore: on this vote the yeas are 222.

the nays are 191. with two answering present. the joint resolution is passed, without objection the motion to reconsider is laid upon the table. for what purpose does the gentleman from georgia seek recognition? million woodall: i send to the desk a privileged concurrent resolution and ask for immediate consideration in the house. the speaker pro tempore: the clerk will report the resolution. the clerk: house concurrent resolution 62. resolved that when the house adjourns on the legislative day of wednesday, october 30, 2013, thursday, october 31, 2013, or friday, november 1, 2013, on a motion offered pursuant to this concurrent resolution by its majority leader or his designee, it stand adjourned until 2:00 p.m. on tuesday, november 12, 2013, or until the time of any reassembly pursuant to section 2 of this concurrent resolution, which ever occurs first. section 2, a, the speaker or his designee after consultation with the minority leader of the house

shall notify the members of the house to reassemble at such place and time as he may designate in his opinion the public interest shall warrant it. b, after reassembling pursuant to subsection a when the house adjourns on a motion offered pursuant to this subsection by its majority leader or his designee, the house shall again stand adjourn pursuant to the first section of this concurrent resolution. >> mr. speaker, the house is not in order. the speaker pro tempore: the house will be in order. without objection, the concurrent resolution is adopted and the motion to reconsider is laid upon the table. the chair will entertain requests for one-minute speeches. for what purpose does the gentleman from missouri seek recognition? >> mr. speaker, i'd like to -- unanimous consent to speak ott house, revise and extend my remarks. the speaker pro tempore: without objection. mr. cleaver: mr. speaker, two days ago what one newspaper

called perhaps one of the , ike en of congress skelton, died here in washington . for those of us here in the missouri delegation as well as those who are involved with -- who were involved with congressman skelton on the armed services committee, we are here convey to the body that our colleague, our friend has indeed died and we who had the opportunity to know and serve ith him are of course very saddened by his unexpected death. ike skelton was 81 years old. he served here for 34 years. and served all that time on the

armed services committee. of course becoming the chair of armed services. he was a man of great humility. a man of great distinction. and was to be honored in two weeks at the truman library in kansas city. we think that he has been such a significant player in washington that we indeed had to stand up and express our pain over his passing. senator claire mccaskill is here from the other side and we are ask at this time if we could have members please stand for a minute of silent reflection. unanimous consent for the members to stand in silence in

memory of isaac newton skelton. the speaker pro tempore: without objection. mr. cleaver: thank you, mr. chairman. the speaker pro tempore: are there further requests for one-minute speeches?

for what purpose does the gentleman from maryland seek recognition? mr. hoyer: mr. speaker, we have just observed a moment of silence for isaac skelton. my good friend, emanuel cleaver, ike's good friend, senator mccaskill, bill clay, lacy clay, and others who are here from the missouri delegation. i want to rise with them not on a moment of silence but moment of tribute. we'll perhaps have an opportunity to speak a longer time. yesterday many of us had the opportunity to participate in a memorial service for tom foley. tom foley was the speaker of this house. and a gentleman spoke who is i think one of the most revered members that has served in this body, robert michael -- robert bichel. bob michael was tom foley's

friend. bob michel was the republican leader of the other side of the aisle. they were friends, colleagues, and cooperative with one another to the benefit of this institution and its members. and the dean of the house adds correctly to the benefit of our country and all its citizens. bob michel observed the civility that each one of them displayed and the willingness to reach out across the aisle and to make things happen positively for our country and for our citizens. we lost another individual within the last weeks, bill young, who was a similar personality and added luster to

this congress by his service and his civility. major owens was another whom we lost. four people who made this institution a better place. ike skelton was my brother. he and i were sigma chis. his son was a sigma chi. his father was a sigma chi. we had a special bond. his first wife, susan, who died, as mine did, came down the road to bowie, maryland. i had a special bond with ike. also an extraordinary great respect for the way he conducted himself as a representative of the people of is district in missouri.

and the respect he gave each of us and the respect he gave in return, how sad it is that these giants, tom foley, bill young, ike skelton, and yes, major owens, passed from this body, passed from this life but how joyful it is at the extraordinary contributions each of them made to this house, which we should revere and love, the people's house. e skelton was of the people, for the people and certainly by he people. and i yield back the balance of my time. 'd yield to my friend. mr. wolf: ike lived here in

northern virginia. when i saw he died i felt very, very badly. second what the gentleman said. many nights as i was driving by, i would see a car, ike skelton and bill emerson, they carpooled together. bill emerson, a republican, ike skelton from your side, they carpooled together. they were the best of friends. ike was one of the finest people i served with since i've been in this house. i thank the gentleman for yielding. mr. hoyer: i thank the gentleman for his comment and i yield back the balance of my ime. the speaker pro tempore: the chair will receive a message. the messenger: mr. speaker, a message from the president of the united states. mr. speaker. the speaker pro tempore: mr. secretary. the secretary: i am directed by the president of the united

states to deliver to the house of representatives a message in writing. the speaker pro tempore: for what purpose does the gentleman from texas seek recognition? mr. poe: i ask unanimous consent to address the house for one minute and to revise and extend my remarks. the speaker pro tempore: without objection. mr. poe: mr. speaker, the most important person in my life, my grandmother, always told me that you never hurt somebody you claim you love. this simple but powerful statement is one to reflect on this month, october, domestic violence awareness month. when i came to congress, i met a remarkable woman named yvette cade from maryland who was the victim of a horrible domestic abuse. after being denied a protective order by a judge, yvette's estranged husband came to her place of employment, point of order gasoline on her and -- poured gasoline on her and set her on fire. this does not hold her back and now she advocates for other domestic abuse victims.

domestic violence affects all races, religion and economic group. i am working along with my friend, jim costa, of the victims rights caucus, to make sure that congress deals with this issue, not just october, but every month of the year. domestic violence is never the fault of the victim. it's the fault of the perpetrator. mr. speaker, you never hurt somebody you claim you love. and that's just the way it is. yield back. the speaker pro tempore: for what purpose does the gentleman from ohio seek recognition? -- the gentlewoman, i'm sorry. ms. kaptur: i ask unanimous consent to address the house for one minute and to include extraneous material into the record. mr. speaker, it's with gratitude but with heavy heart that i on behalf of the people of the united states and our region of ohio in particular extend deepest sympathy to the people of poland on the passing of ex-premiere of poland.

during his exceptional and transformative life, he played a will the gentleman yielding role in ushering the first era of liberty that poland had been afforded in modern history. poland has assumed a pivotal and leading role in the european union, and its history, history is still recording its rich poignant struggle to defeat tyranny and give rebirth to freedom. as "the new yorks times" reported this week, the premiere was the first communist to head a block nation since the late 1940's. salad aret in poland grew with his engagement and his leadership in poland at a time of critical change toward a democratic state has secured for him a permanent place in the history of a free poland in europe. poland's see admission to nato and poland's growing cooperation within the world of nations. an accomplished literary figure, roman catholic leader

and figure, he embodied the meaning of a renaissance man. his imprisonment by the communist party for his progressive beliefs never dampened his spirit. he was a freedom fighter in word and deed. mr. speaker, may he inspire many others with the rigor and may white eagles fly over his memory and poland's historic accomplishments as she walk with free nations in liberty's mark. i yield back the balance of my time. the speaker pro tempore: for what purpose does the gentleman from pennsylvania seek recognition? >> i ask unanimous consent to address the house for one minute and to revise and extend my remarks. the speaker pro tempore: without objection. >> mr. speaker, over the past few months, i've come to the house floor to sound the alarm regarding the emptiness of the promises the president made when he sold his health care law. promises such as if you like your health care plan you can keep it and that premiums would drop by $2,500.

those promises, mr. speaker, are now on the ash heap of history. here's what i'm hearing from my district. a woman from allegeny county recently showed me the letter she got from her insurance letter. the letter begins -- this is to inform you that we'll discontinue your health care plan on december 31, 2013. mr. rothfus: a father tells me that his family's coverage will be terminated next year. another woman in the north hills tells me she gets insurance through her employer, a small business, but her share of the premiums are frippling. when a product comes with a promise that is broken, you take it back and look for a new product. the empowering patients first health and the american health care reform act are examples of new health care reform products we can look at. they are solutions that empower consumers and not washington elites and they are a good place to start. i thank the speaker and i yield back. the speaker pro tempore: for

what purpose does the gentleman from rhode island seek recognition? mr. langevin: i ask unanimous consent to address the house for one minute and to revise and extend my remarks. the speaker pro tempore: without objection. mr. langevin: mr. speaker, i, too, want to join my colleagues in offering condolens on the passing of ike skelton. weighs wonderful member, a mentor and a dear friend, and let me say how much he'll sadly be missed. 's in our thoughts and prayers, as is his family during this difficult time. as co-chair of the cybersecurity caucus, i commend the efforts of the department of homeland security, the multistate information sharing and analysis center and other organizations working to improve cybersecurity in the united states on the 10th anniversary of national cybersecurity awareness month. throughout october, these organizations and private- public sector partners have throughout atives

the country to educate americans about cybersecurity. cyberspace today is linked into every aspect of our daily lives and efforts such as this are crucial to creating a safe, secure and resilient cyberenvironment. i hope my colleagues will join me in congratulating all who made cybersecurity awareness month a success. thank you and i yield back the balance of my time. the speaker pro tempore: for what purpose does the gentleman from georgia seek recognition? >> i ask unanimous consent to address the house for one minute and to revise and extend. the speaker pro tempore: without objection. mr. johnson: mr. speaker, i rise to recognize an everyday hero, a young constituent of mine who has set an example we would all do well to follow. mary patricia hecter, a 15-year-old from georgia refused to sit idly by while children across the nation died in playgrounds, while funerals outnumbered graduation ceremonies and where violence

begot more violence. she had a campaign to combt youth gun violence, aptly named think twice. her campaign encourages youth to think twice before picking up a gun. mary pat's work earned her the peace first prize, a prestigious peace making award. i'm proud of her achievements and i'm glad to have the privilege of representing her. and like those before me, i also pray that my good friend and former chairman, ike skelton, rest in peace. hank you and i yield back. the speaker pro tempore: for what purpose does the gentlewoman from california seek recognition? >> i ask for unanimous consent to address the house for one minute. the speaker pro tempore: without objection. ms. lee: thank you, mr. chairman. as a member of the sustainible energy and environment

coalition and the safe climate caucus, i rise to call for urgent congressional action on climate change. we must follow the examples of my home state of california, washington, oregon, british columbia. these leaders have come together -- they came together monday and signed the pacific coast action plan on climate and energy. the action plan will help them collectively reduce carbon pollution and greenhouse gas emissions which will not only help the environment but it will also help public health and strengthen our economy. this is a small but significant step to act on climate change. these leaders have taken these important steps because they know the consequences of inaction. they recognize that the effects of climate change cross borders freely. republicans and democrats should follow this good example of action and our leadership should move forward to combat climate change. i, too, want to give my sympathy and my prayers at the

loss of a great leader, chairman ike skelton, and i know on behalf of my predecessor, my former boss, my colleague, congressman skelton was a personal friend and i know that he would want me to say today that he misses him, ay his soul rest in peace. the speaker pro tempore: under the speaker's announced policy of january 3, 2013, the gentleman from virginia, mr. wolf, is recognized for 60 minutes as the designee of the majority leader. mr. wolf: thank you, mr. speaker. mr. speaker, last week new national poll was released by respective pollster patrick cadell, a republican, and john mclaughlin, a democrat, making clear that the american people still they don't know the truth

about what happened in benghazi, nearly 14 months ago. according to the poll, commissioned by secure america now, 63% of americans, quote, think the obama administration is covering up the facts about benghazi, end of quote, and only 29% of registered voters say the obama administration benghazi. nest about think about that for a moment. a supermajority of americans believe they have been misled by their government about what happened in benghazi. this is remarkable. the american people know how significant it is that ambassador stevens, the president's personal envoy to libya, was the first ambassador killed in the line of duty in four decades on september 11, 11 years to the day that nearly 3,000 people were killed by al aeda terrorists.

the american people intuitively understand that a plot of this scale was not spontaneously inspired, as claimed by the administration's now infamous talking points. the american people also know that it's remarkable that no effort was made by washington to rescue the americans in benghazi or dispatch a hostage rescue team after the ambassador went missing that night. i think the american people also wonder just what the c.i.a. was doing in benghazi. was it involved in the collection and transfer of weapons to foreign countries, possibly to support the syrian rebels, and could some of those weapons have fallen into the wrong hands, like the syrian jihadists? it is too easy to say this is, quote, classified information,

and expect the american people to look away. four americans were killed that night, several were wounded and no one came to help them. was it because the c.i.a. was conducting a covert operation and if something went wrong, that was just the price of doing business? were the c.i.a. activities in benghazi part of the reason the consulate and annex were targeted? these are legitimate questions the american people are asking that deserve clear answers. . the poll also found that 62% of the american people support creating a, quote, special bipartisan committee with broad powers to get to the truth about the attacks in benghazi. 83% of republicans, 58% of independents support the idea. notably, nearly half of democrats said it was important

to create a bipartisan committee to learn the truth. bottom line, americans from across the political spectrum recognize that not only are they not being told the truth, but they feel congress needs to change its approach to the investigation by creating a special committee. why is it, despite more than a year of investigations and five separate committees, the american people feel they still don't know the truth about what happened? perhaps it's because despite more than a year of investigations by five committees, most of the questions raised about that night remain unanswered. perhaps it's because despite more than a year of investigation by five committees , hardly any of the key witnesses responsible for the government's response that night or lack thereof have publicly, and the key word is publicly,

testified. perhaps it is because despite more than a year of investigations none of the survivors that could help answer the key questions have publicly testified before congress. perhaps it is because, despite more than a year of investigations, so few committee hearings have been held publicly. or happens -- or perhaps it's because, despite more than a year of investigations, what little the american people have learned have come from news reports from cnn, cbs, fox and other news organizations and not from congressional hearings or testimony. i think all these factors have contributed to the sense among the american people that congress has failed in its oversight responsibility. the american people know they haven't been told the full story about what happened that night. and they believe they've been

intentionally misled by the administration. i've come to the floor today to once again call on my leadership to create a house select committee on benghazi. i'm often asked what is holding up the creation of the select committee. the simple answer is because the speaker has not agreed to it. i like the speaker, he has a tough job. and he may have good reasons for not wanting to establish this select committee. but i don't know what it is and more importantly i don't think the american people know what it is. let me be clear. my criticism is not with any of the chairmen of committees that are looking into this. they're all good men, they worked very hard, their handles are tied, they are requires, though, to stay within their jurisdictional lanes, examining only what they are allowed to investigate according to their committee charter. what happened in benghazi is

interrelated. the lanes chriscross. the white house, the state department -- crisscross. the white house, the state department, the defense department, the c.i.o. were all involved, resulting in overlapping but uncoordinated investigations. benghazi was a terrorist attack. we needed team effort to find out what happened. why it happened. and how we are going to bring the perpetrators to justice. any of these chairmen would be capable of leading this select committee, and other members of their committees would be very good to serve as well. they would do a good job. i have confidence in them. let me be clear, i have no intention of chairing or serving on the select committee. i will not serve on the select committee. i just want to learn the truth, just like the american people. there is a history in congress

that when things overlap between committees and transcend jurisdictions, select committees were established. two well-known examples, watergate and iran contra. i am submitting for the record a list of the past select committees over the past 50 years, which will be at the end of my statement. a select committee would take members from each committee, with their individual expertise and many of the members from these various committees have tremendous expertise. and have them work on this investigation day in and kay out with no other -- day out with no other distractions. it would also prevent the administration from saying one thing to one committee of jurisdiction and something else to another. i'm reminded of the poem, the blind men and the elephant, which is said to originate in india. in the poem, six blind men touch a part of an elephant and each provides a different description

of what the elephant must look like. they argue at great length between themselves and the poem ends by saying, well, each is partly right, they are all wrong. the morale of the poem is that -- morale of the poem is -- the moral of the poem is they don't know the truth until the full picture comes into focus. each of the five committees may not be seeing the entire picture of what happened that night. regular order has limited the committees from going beyond their jurisdictions. one group ought to have the responsibility to get to the bottom of parts -- all parts of this trang. one group needs to lay out a road map to obtaining and reporting that information to the american people so we can restore confidence that congress has a serious oversight plan on benghazi. remember, the whole is greater

than the sum of the parts. we need to see the whole of this tragedy. my bill to create a select committee, h.res. 36, now has 178 co-sponsors. more than 3/4 of the republican conference, more than a supermajority of the majority. nearly 3/4 of the republican members who serve on the committees already investigating benghazi now support a select committee. that means the plurality of the members who have been directly involved in committee investigations believe a select committee would be a more effective approach. the bill has been endorsed by the american legion, representing so many vets who sacrificed and gave their time and effort to serve this country , the federal law enforcement office association, which represents the diplomatic security agents thamp present in

benghazi -- that were present in benghazi. the people who represent them who were present in benghazi support the select committee. groups also representing the highly respected special ops community who served this nation so well. the editorial page of the "wall most journal", perhaps important it has been endorsed by some of the family members of the benghazi victims. like sean smith's mother and ty woods' father, who want to know the truth about what happened to their children that night and why their country fell short in its response. nothing will bring their children back. but we can at least provide them with a clear answer and a sign -- and assign accountability for those responsible for intelligence failures and the inept response that night. the best way to do this is to break down the stovepipes between the five committees. hold public, public hearings and

issue subpoenas to all the survivors of benghazi, those who were in tripoli and those who were in washington responding that night. we need a public hearing with the principles -- principals involved in the decision making process in washington on september 11, 2012. including former secretary panetta, former secretary of state clinton, former c.i.a. director petraeus, former white house advisor and current c.i.a. director john brennan, and former africom commander, general ham hm, as well as the white house. we also need a similar hearing with each of the deputies and others who were witness to the calls for help and the decision surrounding the response not to help. unless we hear from these people publicly, the american people will never learn the truth about whether there were warnings prior to the attack, what calls

for help were made that night, whether the c.i.a. security team was in fact delayed in leaving to respond to the initial attack at the consulate, and what response was from washington, among many other questions. also the american people should know, should know of the bravery of the men who were there in nghazi and until these key individuals are sitting side-by-side at the witness table, answering questions under oath in public, we will never get a clear picture of who made the decisions that night and why. and, again, the hearings must be in public. the american people can handle the truth. failure to get these answers means there will never be any accountability, which further erodes public confidence in government. absent a select committee, the congress will fail to learn the

truth about what happened that night, because the administration will continue to use the jurisdictional barriers between each committee to continue to slow walk or deny information. there are a number of new developments in recent weeks that make a select committee more timely than ever. first, our colleague, mike rogers, chairman of the intelligence committee, confirmed earlier reports telling fox news that the plot against the consulate and the c.i.a. anics in benghazi appears to have been weeks, if not months, in the making and that at least two of the plots' leaders had close connections to senior al qaeda leadership. nearly a year ago i circulated a memo to all members prepared by respected terrorism analysts, thomas joss lynn, detailing the apparent -- joslyn, detailing the apparent connections and likely coordination between al

qaeda affiliates in libya, lemon -- shia and yemen the week of september 11, 2012. unfortunately the committees have not held public, and again the word public, hearings looking at the connection between these threats. last week fox news first reported that, quote, at least two of the key suspects in the benghazi terror attacks were at one point working with al qaeda senior leadership. sources familiar with the investigation tell fox news the sources said one of the suspects was believed to be a carrier for the al qaeda network and the other a bodyguard in afghanistan prior to the 2001 terror attacks, end of quote. she went on and said, the direct

ties to the al qaeda senior leadership undercut earlier characterizations by the obama administration that the attackers in benghazi were isolated extremists, not al qaeda terrorists. with no organizational structure or affiliation, end of quote. 60 hen on sunday, cbs minutes d aired a segment -- 60 minutes d aired a segment further explaining what happened that night and the increasingly clear connection to al qaeda and i'm very grateful for "60 minutes" for covering this story. it was reported that, quote, just a few weeks ago a man was captured for his role in the africa bombings and the u.s. is still investigating what part he may have played in benghazi. we have learned, she said, that his man, a form guantanamo bay detainee, and a long-time al qaeda operatific, was one of the lead planners, planners along

osama hers whose ties to bin laden go back more than 15 years. he's believed to have carried documents from the compound to the head of al qaeda in pakistan , end of quote. it is particularly notable, he reportedly delivered documents from u.s. facilities in benghazi to the head of al qaeda in pakistan. establishing a direct link between benghazi attacks and senior leadership of al qaeda. among the other revelations in the "60 minutes" segment, al qaeda stated its intent to attack americans in benghazi, along with the red cross and the british mission, well in advance of september 11. lieutenant colonel andy wood, the top american security official in libya, in the months leading up to the attack told cbs that both the state department and the defense

department were well aware of the threat and the attacks on the ready red cross and british missions. and he said it was of course obvious to the americans in libya, obvious that it was only a matter of time until an attack on the u.s. happened. when the terrorists stormed the consulate property they said, quote, we're here to kill americans, not libyans. end of quote. and they spared the lives of the libyan guards. confirmation of that information are detailed on the house floor in july noting that, quote, a quick reaction force from the ignored orders to race to the compound, at times running and shooting their way through the streets just to get there, end of quote.

they encountered professional fighters as they entered the benghazi compound. mortar fires hit the roof of the annex three teems in the dark. lieutenant colonel wood described hitsing a target like that as, quote, getting the basketball through the hoop over your shoulder and that it took, quote, coordination, planning, training, experienced personnel to pull off such a well-executed attack. two delta force operators who fought at the c.i.a. annex apparently as part of the impromptu team that flew in from tripoli during the attack without permission from washington have, quote, been awarded the distinguished service cross and the knave ross -- navy cross, two of the

military's highest honors and we owe them a debt of fwrattude. the u.s. already knew that enior al qaeda leader abu amas al-libi was there and tasked by the head of al qaeda to establish a clandestine terrorist network inside the country. al-libi was wanted for his role in bombing two embassies in africa where two constituents from my congressional district were killed. notably, the administration made no mention of his connection to the benghazi attack in its announcement of his capture last month. some of the questionkey questions that remane unanswered are why the security team was ordered not to respond to the attack at the consulate and why no larger military response ever crossed the border into libya, some in the u.s. deputy chief of -- something the u.s. deputy chief of mission realized wasn't going to happen an hour into the

attack. it is particularly note worthy that logan addressed the pressure on witnesses she encountered in her investigation saying, here's what she said, quote, an extraordinary amount of pressure on the people involved not to talk. and an extraordinary amount of pressure on anyone in the government, the military side, the political side, not to say anything out of official channels. this is consistent with the concerns i have repeatedly raised on the floor, house floor, about efforts by this administration to silence survivors and witnesses to the benghazi attack and response. what are they afraid of, these witnesses, sharing with the american people? how can the congress stand by and allow this to happen knowing full well it's taking place. cnn in july reported that, quote, since january, some

c.i.a. operatives involved in the agency's mission in libya have been subjected to frequent, even monthly, polygraph nmingses, according to a source with deep inside knowledge of the agency's working. the goal for questioning, according to sources, is to fiend out if anyone is talking to the media or congress. that was reported by cnn. in july. fox news in a separate piece in july reported, quote, at least five c.i.a. employees were forced to sign adegreesal nondisclosure agreements this past spring in the wake of the benghazi attack. that's what fox news said in july of this year. as someone who represents thousands of federal employees and contractors, including many who work for the c.i.a., the f.b.i., the state department, and the defense department, i know from years of firsthand experience how agencies can

sometimes use various forms of pressure and intimidation to keep employees from sharing information of concern with congress. i know the benghazi survivors and other witnesses that night need the protection of a friendly subpoena to compel their testimony before congress, particularly on matters as sensitive as this, in order to protect them. so far the committees have failed to provide this protection to allow survivors and other witnesses, to allow them to share their story publicly so the american people can hear them. based on disclosures in recent news reports, i now believe that the benghazi plot represents a significant intelligence failure by the united states at several levels. understanding these failures as well as the government's inexplicable response during and after the attack, is critical to preventing future attacks.

i want to outline a number of apparent intelligence failures leading up to the attack which i believe a select committee investigation would confirm. first, state department and c.i.a. failed in their assessment of the militia groups working for the americans in benghazi, including the february 7 martyrs brigade responsible for guarding consulate property, which abandoned the americans and may have facilitated access to the compound for the terrorists. according to a may 21 article by eli lake on the "daily beast," c.i.a., quote, offices were -- officers were responsible for vetting the february 17 martyrs brigade, the militia that was supposed to be the first responders on the night of the attack but melted away when the diplomatic mission was attacked. second, the state department, the defense department, and the c.i.a. apparently failed to

adjust their security posture to support the americans in benghazi, based on the growing number of tai tk -- attacks on western targets in benghazi in the summer of 2012. to date, no one has explained or been held accountable for why the u.s. mission was so poorly secured despite pleas for assistance for the embassy -- embassy staff in tripoli to washington. no one has adequately explained why the defense department's emergency response team was on a routine training mission in cree asia during the week of september 11 when it should have been on alert to respond, especially given the threats to the u.s. embassy in cairo and egypt earlier in the day before the benghazi attack. so the team, the emergency response team, was on a training mission in cree asia on the very

-- in croatia on the very time and date every knows september 11, given the threats to the embassy, it is shocking that this is the case. third, the intelligence community apparently failed to understand the size and scope of the attack brewing in benghazi in the months leading up to september 11. as chairman rogers acknowledged to fox news last week, this was a well-coordinated attack that was many weeks, if not months, in the making. earlier this year, cnn reported on the number of foreign fighters that arrived in benghazi to participate in the attack in the days leading up to september 11. a witness in the 60 minute report noted how plaque al qaeda flags were openly flying in the months before the attack. in the months before the attack. and also noted the announced

threat against u.s., british, and red cross facilities. how did the government miss these warnings? or were they simply ignored? fourth, the intelligence community seemed to have more broadly failed to understand and anticipate how al qaeda wass me it's a sizing in north after chasm the administration has been quick to take credit for the raid that killed osama bin laden in may, 2011, and declared throughout the 2012 presidential campaign that as a result of its efforts that, quote, poor al qaeda, end of quote, has been decimated. however the facts don't support the administration narrative. a cnn report on monday, the terrorist attacks hit record high in 2012, and quote, more than 8,500 terrorist attacks killed more than 15,500 people last year as violencer to

through africa, asia and the mideast, end cough quote. increasingly this includes north african countries like libya. cnn also said, quote, despite the death of osama bin laden, and the capture of other key al qaeda leaders, the group has exported its brand of terrorism to other militant muslims. end of quote. these groups include affiliates like ansar al sharia in libya. additionally cbs' laura logan noted earlier this week following a report on benghazi, that, quote, it became evident to us in the course of our re search that very little is known publicly about the true nature of al qaeda's network in libya and that has consequences beyond benghazi and beyond libya. it has consequences that speak to the national security interests of the united states of america, end of quote. most of these affiliate terrorist groups have sworn an

allegiance to al qaeda and appear to closely coordinate their activities and plots with a core al qaeda leadership, including iman al-zawahiri, lane's successor. to misdis or -- dismiss or minimize the relationship with al qaeda's senior leadership ises me guided and i believe dangerous as we've seen over the last several years. i fear this administration's insistence on treating core al qaeda different they than groups like ansar al sharia has led to agesa dangerous mischaracterization of a threat and resulted in a failure to anticipate attacks like the one that occurred in benghazi. fifth, it appears that documents were taken from the consulate and c.i.a. annex in benghazi in the wake of the attacks. as i said earlier, 60 minutes

reported that a terrorist, whose ties to lane go back nearly two decades, is, quote, believed to have carried documents from the compound to the head of al qaeda in pakistan. end of quote. what was take fn the consulate and annex and given to al qaeda's leadership, we don't know. additionally, as laura logan noted following her report, quote, we did not expect that we would find the u.s. compound in a the state we found it. there was still debris and ammunition boxes and the white board with the day's assignment for the security personnel at the compound as of september 11, 2012, end of quote. clearly in the chaos of fighting and evacuation, information was left behind at the facilities that may have consequences for americans operating in the region. i also believe the administration response to benghazi attack over the last year has been nothing short of shameful.

that also merits a full investigation by a select committee. first, from the first hours of the attack, when it became apparent that in help was coming to assist those under attack either from u.s. forces or from allies in the region, to the failure of the f.b.i. to gain access to key suspects in tunisia and egypt over the last year, this administration has sent a signal to terrorists that the u.s. will not strongly respond to an attack on americans abroad. the failure to either arrest or kill any of the scores of terrorists responsible for the attack more than a year later is inexcusable and reflects unwillingness by this administration to bring diplomatic pressure to bear on countries harboring these terrorists. i'm increasingly convinced that this administration is more comfortable using the ongoing f.b.i. investigation as an excuse not to answer questions

than they are in bringing these terrorists to justice. as i said on the house floor in july of last year, tunisia detained the first suspect in the benghazi terrorist attacks, ali parsi after he was deported from turkey in the weeks following the attack. tunisia, despite being a ben fish year of more than $300 million of u.s. foreign aid, american taxpayer money, over $300 million, goes to tunisia, they refused to allow the f.b.i. access to this suspect for nearly five weeks. it was only after congressional threats to cut off the aid that the government of tunisia reconsidered its position. ultimately the f.b.i. interrogation team returned to tunisia and was allowed just three hours to interview the suspect with his lawyer and a due netion judge present. not -- and a tunisian judge

present. not long after that interview, e was inexplicably released by tunisian authorities and his release was celebrated by terrorists. it's been confirmed he's been assassinated in at least one assassination of a tunisian political leader. in another case, the f.b.i. has been denied access to mohammed jamaal, an al qaeda-connected terrorist who ran training camps in egypt prior to the benghazi attack. several of his associates are believed to have participated in the benghazi plot and terrorism analysts believe he may have communicated directly with zawahiri and al qaeda's leadership about this and other attacks. though he's been in egyptian custody for more than a year, when other -- on other terrorism-related charges, the u.s. has never provided access

to him under both a mor see government and now the current military government. i personally delivered a letter asking the then president morsi to provide the f.b.i. access to jamal and his documents. i don't believe the ambassador ever delivered the letter and if she did, she never told me. but that in itself is very, very troubling. jamal's connection to the benghazi attack is particularly noteworthy given that both the u.s. and the united nations formally, both the u.s. and the united nations, formally designated him as a terrorist earlier this month. however, an another example of the administration's aversion to discussing terrorist connections to the benghazi attack. the u.n. designation clearly notes jamal's connection to the benghazi attack, whereas the state department designation

missed it. so the u.s. designation clearly notes jamal's connection to benghazi attack, the state department admits it. the u.n. says and our state department omits it? i believe there's an -- there's been pressure by the administration to omit this type of information from u.s. intelligence products. sending conflicting signals to both our allies and the countries that may have benghazi suspects of interest to the f.b.i. and i have a lot of confidence in the f.b.i., if they're just allowed to do their job. but if we're unwilling to identify their involvement in the attacks, it further erodes u.s. credibility and asking for access to these individuals. this willful blindness is disingenuous and i believe ultimately dangerous.

in january, when i offered an amendment to create a select committee to the house rules package for the 113th congress, speaker boehner told the epublican conference that he didn't believe that with we had reached the threshold for a select committee. he suggested that we might get to the threshold but the committee of jurisdiction just needed more time. that may have been the case in nuary but nearly 11 months later, i think the broad support that has built up over the last year makes it clear we are more than past the threshold for a select committee now. i believe and i believe the american people believe that the threshold has clearly been reached in terms of co-sponsors, endorsements and new revelations from the press reports and a deep concern the american people have for this issue. i was particularly struck by the comments made by ambassador steveness' deputy gray hicks in the "60 minutes" piece segment

sunday. quote, us for the people that go out onto the edge, to represent our country, he said, we believe that if we get in trouble, they're coming to get us. that our back is covered. he said, at it's not, it's terrible, a terrible experience, end of quote. it is not enough for the administration to just say there's nothing more that could have been done, especially given the evidence indicates that they didn't try much at all to assist the americans under fire in benghazi. mr. speaker, it is time for a unified bipartisan select committee. let's get to the truth once and for all so we can find out what happened and restore the american people's confidence in congressional oversight and confidence in government. i yield back the balance of my time.

the speaker pro tempore: the gentleman yields back the balance of his time. under the speaker's announced policy of january 3, 2013, the gentleman from texas, mr. green, is recognized for 60 minutes as the designee of the minority leader. mr. green: thank you, mr. speaker. mr. speaker, ending domestic violence is not a quick quest. it is a noble calling and this is why we have filed h.res. 392, a resolution supporting the goals and ideals of october as national domestic violence awareness month. and expressing the sense of the house of representatives that congress should continue to raise awareness of domestic violence. and its devastating effects on individuals, families and communities. and support programs designed to end domestic violence in the

united states. mr. speaker, i'm honored to tell you that we will have a number of speakers. at this time i'm going to yield to the congresswoman from the fourth district of maryland, she serves on science and technology, transportation and infrastructure, she co-chairs the woman's caucus and she is the chair of the democratic women's working group. she also co-founded the national network to end domestic violence in 1994. she was the executive director. am proud to ask my colleague, the honorable donna edwards, to consume as much time as she may. ms. edwards: i thank the gentleman and i thank you very and i know that you join with your colleague, mr. poe of texas, in hosting this hour so that we can have an opportunity to remember why it is that we

identify and commemorate domestic violence awareness month. and to make a commitment from this day forward and this coming year to the next time when we have this observance to do what we can to end domestic violence. and i think after all that is the goal. i can't remember, mr. green, when i first became interested in domestic violence. and even aware of domestic violence. but i look back to the times when i was growing up, i grew up in a military family, and we lived in very close quarters and our neighbors, we shared a wall in that military family housing, and in our neighbor's house there was clearly something going on. my sister and i shared a bedroom and we could hear what was going on and it was violent, it was clearly violent. i don't know that i understood that at the time, mr. speaker. but i have come to understand it

as an adult. , it frames my commitment life-long commitment, to ending domestic violence. i remember at that time the military police being called and they would come and they would drive the gentleman around the block and then he would be delivered right back home. and a few nights later the exact same thing would happen again. i remember my sister and i seeing the woman who lived next door and we were friends with their children and i remember seeing her and i was always intrigued by her dark glasses and her great makeup and the scarfs that she wore around her neck. it wasn't until later that i understood she was covering her black eye, she was covering the bruises on her neck, that she was covering the bruises on her face from having been a victim of domestic violence. it was many, many years in fact,

as an adult, where i came to really process and understand what was going on. i think because domestic violence affects so many around the country, and particularly -- and most particularly it affects women, that there is almost a chance that in any given family or at a family reunion or family gathering you will find someone, if you probe just enough, you will find someone who has experienced domestic violence. very sadly you will also find many young children who have witnessed domestic violence. and i think that we have only to look at the children who are growing up in homes where mostly their mothers are being abused and then we wonledser why it is that when we look at the population of young people who are incarcerated and when you ask them one by one, and i've done this, i've visited incarcerated youth, and almost

to a one they will tell you that either they have been the victims of violence or they grew up in a violent home. i think, mr. speaker, it must resonate with us that we have to ask ourselves why it is that we continue to have violence. and what it is that we can do to get to the root cause of that violence. and so in addition during domestic violence awareness month, to identifying the fact that we lose about $8 billion a year in productivity, that's lost because of domestic violence, lost time off of work, medical expenses, and the rest, we know that it's a social ill that's very pervasive. we also know there are other kinds of crimes that are associated with domestic violence. stalking is one of those. sexual assault within a relationship. mr. speaker, we also are aware that our young women ages 16 to 24 are more likely than not to

experience some form of violence in those relationships. and so while earlier this year -- and it took us some time to get there, mr. speaker, we did finally re-authorize the violence against women act. the violence against women act, which was first authorized in 1994, i was a part of that. helped to lead that effort on the outside, where our leaders in congress were leading on the inside. leaders like our now vice president joe biden who is in the senate and who took this bull by the horns and led us to the passage of the first violence against women act that was signed into law by president clinton. and it was the first time ever that the federal government came forward and said, we have a real commitment to ending domestic violence by providing resources for shelters and services, training law enforcement, making sure that our judges were equipped to handle these cases in court, providing advocacy

services for those who are experiencing the violence and going through the system. and over each successive couple of years, we've re-authorized the violence against women act. we did that just recently. and as i said, and in these tough economic times, it's been very difficult, all of a sudden domestic violence became partisan and political. but i'm glad to say, mr. speaker, that we did finally re-authorize the violence against women act again. we are providing those resources to those who experience violence, but it should also come as no surprise that as we debates this fiscal that we have here in the congress, that because of sequester and shutting down the government even, that many of those shelters and services and programs are in fact experiencing a really difficult at the same time that

they're experiencing more demand. and so i don't say that, mr. speaker, to call out one side or the other, but i am glad we're back at a point where in this domestic violence awareness month, we take the politics out of domestic violence and we say to women, whether you're a republican or democrat or independent, or you don't think about politics at all, that we care about ending domestic violence. we care about the fact, mr. speaker, that more women are placed in a much more dangerous circumstance when there is a weapon in the home and that weapon is used to either kill or harm or threaten the lives of those who are in the home. that's something that we can do something about. mr. speaker, let me just say this, this last year we lost a really powerful advocate for those who experience domestic violence. when senator frank lutenberg died earlier this year from new

jersey. we remembered him in a lot of ways as a leader, mr. speaker, but on this domestic violence awareness month, i would like the nation to remember senator lautenberg because he was the one who spear headed the domestic violence firearm that if youhat said are committing domestic violence and you have a domestic violence offense, that you cannot purchase or possess a weapon. it recognized the federal government and the congress -- it recognized, the federal government and the government recognized the importance of removing a weapon from a home where there's domestic violence. and senator lautenberg was the champion. and so, mr. speaker, i would like to close, i know that we speakers, and just to say that this member of congress, and i know that our colleagues here today remain committed to ending domestic violence, to making sure that

women can achieve their fullest potential by living in a home that's free of violence. and then in fact, as we look it is the world, whether in afghanistan or iraq or it's in south or central america or in africa, in many nations women experience violence in relationships in their home. but, mr. speaker, if we can just end that violence in the home, then we would do a lot to make certain that children are growing up healthy and able to have healthy relationships and that women are able to achieve their fullest potential. and so i join you today in calling attention to domestic violence awareness month and to redoubling our commitment to end domestic violence, and a especially thank you and salute to an organization that i started now, i don't know, 15, 20 years ago, the national network to end domestic violence

, and all of the network of advocates around the country who are committed to the same things that we are, and if only we can provide the resources that they need to do their work, i'm convinced that we can end this scourge and with that i yield. mr. green: thank you for your testimony, it's something i believe will benefit a good many persons viewing this today. i would like to share a few stories if i may. . speaker, i practice law in houston, texas. and my practice was one that involved a good deal of civil work. and in the early 1970's, i can recall females coming to my office to receive assistance from a lawyer to file charges based upon abuse that had been imposed upon them. and in some of the cases, the

damage done to the person was physical, immediately seen. but as you talked to the person, you could see that this person had been suffering for years. literally years of suffering would emerge from this person in a 30-minute, one hour, hour and a half visit and they would plead with me, please help me get the charges filed. the plea was there because at that time it was considered a family issue. and when women would go in to file charges, the police would say, um, well, we'll look at it, we'll see if we can get somebody out there, but they didn't always respond to the need that was evident. the need was evident buzz of what the eye could see. and many of the ladies that would come into my office, the women that would come in, would bring a minister or some other person to corroborate the story.

there was this belief that your physical appearance alone was not enough evidence to support the filing of charges. and unfortunately, society had so developed at that time that we would take this victim to intake and we would help with the filing of the charges and we'd help get charges filed and the unfortunate circumstance was that the culture at that time was such that other family members would visit with the victim and encourage the victim to drop the charges. family members seeing and knowing about the abuse not only on this occasion for which charge were being filed but also the abuse that had occurred through the years. and family members would quite often prevail. and as a result charges would

sometimes be dropped. and i rhett gr -- regret that we went through this time in our history where women were not treated with the dignity and respect they should be accorded. a lot of that has gone away and i'll say more about a lot of this in just a moment but there are still -- there is still enough of it for taos band together and for us to answer the clarion call for help that these women present to us on a daily basis. i'm honored to tell you that we have with us now another member of congress from the 40th district of california. she serves on the appropriations committee and i'm honored to ask that she consume as much time as she may, the honorable lucille roybal-allard. ms. roybal-allard: mr. speaker,

let me begin by commending congressman green for his leadership in helping to highlight the tragedy of domestic violence in our country and for arranging today's special order. while it is true that we have made some progress toward addressing violence against women, the fact remains that nearly one third of women in the united states still report being physically or sexually abused by a partner in their lifetime. domestic violence, dating violence, sexual assault, and stalking lead to severe social health and economic -- social, health, and economic consequences for women and our communities. with the estimated cost of violence exceeding $70 billion each year. our nation's economic crisis has hammered home the sad truth that

financial concerns often keep victims in abusive relationships. studies indicate that economic independence is a key predictor of whether a victim will be eable to break the seekle of violence and leave her abuser. far too often, it is difficult for victims to maintain employment in the aftermath of domestic violence, especially if they require time off for medical appointments, court appearances, and for their own safety. as a result, women who experience demest exviolence are more likely than other women to be unemployed, to suffer from health problems that impact employable and job performance, to report lower personal income, and to rely on welfare. these poor economic outcomes often perpetuate the abuse.

for the last 16 years, i have introduced legislation that would help ensure victims of domestic violence, sexual assault, and stalking have the financial independence they need to break free from their abusers. the security and financial empowerment act or safe act would allow survivors to take unpaid time off from work to make necessary court appearances, seek legal assistance, and get help with safety planning without the fear of losing their job. the safe act would prohibit employers or insurance providers from basing hiring insurance coverage decisions on individual history of abuse and ensure eligibility for unemployment benefits should a survivor be forced to leave her job due to circumstances stemming from demest exviolence.

the safe act empowers victims of domestic violence with greater pliment protections and encreased economic stability to break the all too common cycle of dependence and abuse. as demest exviolence awareness month comes to an end, let us not forget the victims of domestic violence. i ask my colleagues to join me in ensuring financial freedom for those suffering from domestic abuse by co-sponsoring the safe act and i encourage my colleagues to support congressman green's h.res. 392 to make sure that we continue to highlight this tragedy of domestic violence in our country so that one day there will be no domestic violence and it will be unnecessary for us to be here in this hall of congress talking

about this tragedy. i yield back the balance of my time. mr. green: thank you so much. i want to thank the gentlelady for the work she has done here in congress over the years to eliminate domestic violence. this has been a bipartisan effort, mr. speaker. i'm proud to tell you that s. 47, the violence against women re-authorization, this bill passed the house of representatives with bipartisan support. in the house the vote was 28 to 138. it passed the senate with borne support. it was 78-22. the bill had this bipartisan support because it embraced not only women who are known to us as people from our communities, but also there are some communities that were embraced that have not been traditionally a part of the bill.

it helped the women who are american indians because at one time tribal courts could not take on persons who had sexually assaulted women because they were nonindians. the bill addressed this. it also addressed the lgbt community which had not been included. it doesn't matter what your sexual preference is, domestic violence can be imposed upon you and when you are hurt you need help this bill provided the help needed for women regardless of race, creed, color, origin, regardless of your sexual preference, you can get help pursuant to s. 47 which received bipartisan support. i'm honored to tell you that annually, my friend from the state of texas, the honorable ted poe, works with me and i with him, we alternate years of

taking the lead on this issue. he has had a career that has paralleled mine. when he was a prosecutor, i was defense attorney. he became a district court judge in texas right around the time i became the judge of a justice court. here in congress, we have sought to work together on many bills and many pieces of legislation but i'm proudest of what we do on demest exviolence. domestic violence awareness month is one he and i collaborated to work together on to make sure that we get this issue exposed to the public so that we can continue the process of elimination. i'm proud to tell you that he represents the second district of texas, serves on foreign affairs as well as the judiciary committee and i'm proud to tell you that i consider him a friend. not in the sense that we politely say it here in congress when we say, my friend. i consider him a friend in the sense that he and i have developed a real kinship and

relationship, though we don't always agree, we always try to work together for the good of our state, our city, and for the good of women who are being impacted by domestic violence. i would ask my friend, the honorable ted poe to consume as much time as he may. mr. poe: i thank the gentleman for yielding. i appreciate those comments. it is true, congressman green, you and i are -- our careers have mirrored. we spent time at the courthouse together, you as a defense lawyer, me as a prosecutor. we became judges about the same time. got elected to congress the same time. known each other now almost 40 years and i want to thank you for all that time you have been serving the community of texas and our districts match each other there in the houston area. we share a common boundary. i think it's important that we're wearing purple ties today, if i remember correctly if you take red and you take blue and

you mix them together you get purple. how appropriate because this is a bipartisan endeavor that we are trying to show the horror of domestic violence nationwide. not a democrat issue, not a republican issue, it's an american issue. i guess it's a purple issue. e can use that phrase. spent, as you have mentioned, spending time at the courthouse, i saw a lot of these type of cases. and we have come a long way. yes, it is true, i remember the days when domestic violence, when some spouse would beat up another spouse, no matter how bad the injuries, unless it was death, many times the police would say, this is a family problem. it's not a criminal problem, it's not a public problem, it's a family problem. they got to deal with it. and because of that, many women,

primarily, were rejected from prosecuting their spouse when they beat them up. as you mentioned, congressman green, the days of spouses filing charges and then pressured by sometimes the batterer or family members to drop the charges and charges would be dropped. i found that frustrating as a prosecutor and you found it prosecuting when you were trying to help those women get those cases filed. we finally did something in texas that made a whole lot of sense. we took the spouse, the victim, out of the prosecution process. so it was the state of texas vs. the guy and spouse really had no control over prosecution. certainly couldn't drop the charges. took it off of her burden and made that -- those people who wanted the case drop to deal with the state rather than deal with the victim. that was a good thing because then those people started getting prosecuted.

my friend jim costa and i, jim costa, as you know is a democrat from california, he and i started the victims' rights caucus when i came to congress. it's bipartisan. caucus. purple caucus. of both sides that advocate on the part of victims, about 85 or 90 members. one of the things we're concerned about, of course, is spouses that are victims of crime. when say that because somebody beats up someone in the family, it is not the fault of the victim. it's the fault of the person that does the assaulting. the victim is not to blame. and we have to get through our culture and i think we're gradually doing that, to understand it's not the victim's fault. . it's the person who commits the assault. most influential person in my

life was my grandmother. god bless her, she lived until 99 years of age. she told me a lot of things that were very wise. you'd be glad to know, congressman green, she was old-fashioned texas democrat. never for gave me for being a republican. but anyway, we passed that. she said that you never hurt somebody you claim you love. that was a true statement when she told me and it's still a true statement. you never hurt somebody you claim you love. especially in the family situation. and that is something that we need to live by and hold people accountable when they violate that important really rule of life. you mentioned violence against women act. good people of legislation. i supported that for the reasons you mentioned. but also it does something else. it helps -- it's helped the immigrant community. too often we find in houston, where we have a lot of immigrants from all over the

world, that someone is in the united states, they are assaulted by someone else that's in the united states, both undocumented, and the batter tells the victim that if you call the police, i'm going to send you back to where you came from. now, he can't do that. but she thinks he can do that. and so she doesn't call the police. and this guy gets away with hurting her and plus she continues to be victimized. we changed that law because they can come forward, they can get a special visa, they can testify. they can get this person prosecuteded a he should. so it's a good people of legislation and we certainly need to be enforcing the rules under the law. people that i have come in contact with over the years have impacted me and of course many of those have been victims of crime, many of those victims of domestic violence. one that i met after i came here to congress was a wonderful lady

that lives real close to us. he lives over in maryland. she's made her story public so i use her name. yvette cade was a strange -- was estranged from her husband, she was under a protective order. he was under a protective order to leave her alone. she didn't have a lawyer, she didn't have someone like you, mr. green, representing her. she had to represent herself when the protective order came to be renewed. she represented herself in the courtroom and the judge denied the protective order. so it was withdrawn. soon after the judge made that horrible decision, the estranged husband found her over at the video store where she worked, supporting herself, he walked in , he carried a jar of gasoline, he poured it over yvette cade and he set her on fire.

that wonderful, precious lady. and it's all on videotape. from the store. i don't know how she did it, but she survived. a passer by saw what happened, he helped her, he put the fire out, she's had numerous surgeries and she's alive and today she advocates on behalf of in the who are abused family. and quite a remarkable person. but she's a victim of crime. and our culture needs to treat these people in a special way. whether it's to prosecute the criminal or to take care of them when their needs, their physical, mental needs, need to be met. and we're doing a better job of that. this month we recognize those people, those wonderful people, who have been abused. we still have the problem of

convincing them that the crime is not their fault, they are -- as i told a victim as a prosecutor, and even as a judge, you don't need to be embarrassed for what happened to you. the person who did it needed to be -- needs to be embarrassed and it was part of our responsibility i think in the criminal justice system to make sure that happened. i won't go into all those types of cases that you are familiar with on those unique sentencing, mr. green, but we made sure that the criminal knew that he was to blame. and the victim was not to blame or that conduct. after hearing 25,000 felony cases at the courthouse, and i'm not going to relate all 25,000 of them, but i would like to mention another one. and when we think of domestic violence we need to remember not only the spouse but we need to think about the children that are involved too. because many times they are the victims of domestic violence. and there was a young girl who

, a second grader and she like a lot of kids today, she rode the bus back and forth to school. toll meantry school -- to elementary school. i'll call her june. and when she -- one afternoon she's coming back home, she's riding the school bus home, she wouldn't get off the bus. she just sat there. and she was literally gripping that bar that's in front or on the seat in front of you. finally the school bus driver came back and tried to talk to her and asked her, why won't you get off the bus? this is your home. this is where you live. and june replied, i don't want to get off. because i'm only safe when i'm on the bus going to school, at school and when i'm on the bus going home. but bad things happen when i get off the bus. because, see, she went back into

a situation where she was constantly battered about the the live-in boyfriend is what i'm going to call it. and because the bus driver, doing what she did, called the police, an investigation took place, that person was prosecuted, but more importantly, june is safe and her mother is safe. we need to understand that victims of domestic violence live many times quiet lives of desperation and fear and it's r responsibility as congress to eliminate that the best we can. to provide services for victims, to let them understand the crime is not their fault, it's the fault of the perpetrator. and then on the other end we need to make sure those perpetrators get the justice that they deserve at the courthouse and they're held accountable for those actions

that they commit against someone in their family. because, mr. speaker, grand ma was right. it never -- you never hurt somebody you claim you love. and i'll yield back to the gentleman from texas. thank you very much. mr. green: i thank my colleague very much. and i thank you for your many words, pressing what you actually witnessed -- expressing what you actually witnessed. yours is a testimony, not just a recitation of something that was accorded you by another person. you were there to see what happened and you i -- you and i know that there is still great work to be done. in our state of texas, in 2012 domestic violence caused 11,994 adults to need shelter, mr. speaker. caused 14,534 children to need shelter, mr. speaker. caused 36,831 adults to need nonresidential services,

counseling, legal assistance. caused 15,694 children to need nonresidential services. and unfortunately 26.2% of the adults were denied shelter because of a lack of space. so, mr. speaker, there is still great work to be done and i'm honored to ask that the time another colleague to speak. however, would you kindly advice me as to the amount of time that we have left? -- advise me as to the amount of time we have left? the speaker pro tempore: the gentleman has 25 minutes remaining. mr. green: thank you. i ask so that members may be aware, we have a few members left to speak and we want to make sure that every member has some time. at this time, mr. speaker, my very dear friend from the great state of california, the 13th congressional district, who sits on appropriations, and who has been a long-time champion of protecting women and protecting people, she is truly a champion

for the least, the last and the lost, i'm honored to ask the honorable barbara lee to move to the podium and consume an appropriate amount of time. i might also add, mr. speaker, that she was the chair of the congressional black caucus and i was proud to serve under her leadership. ms. lee: thank you very much. first, let me thank congressman al green for that very humbling introduction, for your tremendous leadership and for bringing us all together with of course congressman poe, for really pulling together this special order in recognition of october as domestic violence awareness month. it is so critical that we continue to raise the level of awareness in a bipartisan manner until we rid our country and the world of abuse and domestic violence. as someone who unfortunately understands domestic violence on a very personal level, a deeply personal level, i know how

traumatic the experience is and, yes, i know what the support system and how important the support system is needed to emerge as a survivor. i also know that domestic violence is not only physical, but it's also emotional. it's brutal, it is dehumanizing to the battered and the batter and without strong and enforce -- batterer, and without strong and enforceable law services, one's life can be shattered and destroyed. i know this fr personal experience. also as a psychiatric social worker by profession, battered women syndrome will totally destroy a woman's life if we don't address the counseling and mental health services that will really help women rid themselves of this syndrome which comes as a result of a lifetime of abuse.

so i wrote, i was very proud to write the california's violence against women act, and many, many domestic violence bills that were actually signed into law, conman green, by a republican governor, governor pete wilson. and i continue to make this a prirpte in my congressional work -- a priority in my congressional work. now in my district there are several agencies such as a safe place, which is a victim-centered agency, agencies such as this, they do wonderful work for a minimum budget on issues and services and housing-related to and for victims of abuse. and we need to enhance and raise the level of funding because they do wonderful work, as i said, on -- with minimal resources. we know that staying in the shelter or working with an advocate significantly improves the victim's quality of life. it's my hope that we use domestic violence awareness month to recommit ourselves to fighting the scourge of domestic violence against men and women.

we have made accomplishments over the decades on this issue, including the passage of the family violence prevention and services act, and the violence against women act, which we fought hard to get re-authorized earlier this year under the bold and tremendous leadership of congresswoman gwen moore and leader nancy pelosi. these pieces of legislation have led toon increase of nearly 51%, -- led to an increase of nearly 51% of domestic violence reporting by women and a 37% increase in reporting for men. this is truly a significant impact. yet sadly challenges remain. around the world nearly one in three women have been beaten, coerced into sex or otherwise abused in her lifetime. here in the united states, as many as one in four american women report being physically or sexually abused by a husband or a boyfriend at least once in their lives. in my home state of california, the statistics are even more staggering.

according to the women's health survey, approximately 40% of california women experience physical intimate partner violence in their lifetime. of these women, three out of four of them had children under the age of 18 at home. children who see or experience domestic violence have a much greater chance to either become victims or perpetrators as adults. they're also more likely to attempt suicide, abuse drugs and alcohol, run away from home, engage in teenage prostitution and commit other crimes. beyond the cost to children, domestic violence affects the economy, with as many as half of domestic violence victims reporting the loss of a job due at least in part to domestic violence. in fact, domestic violence costs employers of the united states as much as $13 billion each year, costs our health care system upwards of $5.8 billion, including $4 billion in direct health care expenses.

so when we talk about the state of employment and the cost of health care, especially for women, the economic impacts of domestic violence and what we must do to eradicate it must be part of that conversation. we must prioritize investments in programs that domestic violence survivors rely on when escaping their abusers, including domestic violence programs and other programs of the safety net. when we fail to make the proper investments, women bear the consequences. thousands of requests for domestic violence services go unmet, thousands of calls to the national domestic violence hotline go unanswered, and in times of economic down turn, the rates of domestic vie learn -- domestic violence tend to increase. that's why this re-authorization of the violence against women act was so very important. not only were we able to increase outreach to victims on college campuses and expand protections for victims living on tribal lands, but for the time, first time we

extended access to protections for immigrant and lgbt victims and so as a member of the appropriations committee, i'm going to continue to fight for robust funding at all levels, so that we can continue to provide victims with the services they need. . with strong investments we can address this cry sess and end domestic violence once and for all. though we've made great progress, we cannot claim victory. october is a critical time to raise awareness to what continues to be a pervasive issue in our country but we must remember that for women, children, and men who are experiencing or who have experienced domestic violence, every day must be a day of awareness. we must support all of the legislation and funding efforts that will indicate that finally, mind you, finally, we will not need domestic violence awareness month ever again because we have put an end to domestic violence. again, mr. green.

mr. green: i thank you and i thank you for raising the issue of domestic violence against men. we talk quite often about it being against women and there's good reason. the overwhelming empirical evidence co-notes that women are the largest victims of domestic violence, so i thank you for broadening the issue for us. thank you very much. at this time, mr. speaker, i'm honored to tell you we have a congressman from the state of florida, i was reared in florida, went to florida a&m university, he serves the 18th district of florida, serves on financial services and he is committed to working across the aisle. he makes a converted effort to achieve bipartisanship. hasst a champion for fair play but i also want you to know he -- that as we do this, as we try to end this scourge on society, demest exviolence, it

is more than simply an issue of violence, it has economic components to it. he has tried to cause us to understand some of these components but also that it is a moral issue. i would now ask that my friend who accorded me this tie that is purple, the color purple in the tie, as i understand it, represents courage, survival, honor, and dedication, dead igs to ending demest exviolence and purple is being worn today to spread awareness of domestic violence. i ask my friend, the honorable patrick murphy to consume such time as he may. mr. murphy: thank you, mr. speaker groan, for organizing this special hour and i thank mr. poe, ms. edwards and mrs. ellmers for their leadership on this important issue. i rise today to speak out against domestic violence and to demand that congress act in a bipartisan manner to fight back against this plague on our country. the domestic violence statistic rates in our country are

staggering. one out of every threewomen will be the victim of domestic violence in their lifetime. four are murdered by their intimate partner every day in the united states. further, a woman is battered in the united states every 15 seconds. do the math, that's 240 incidents every hour. we as a society have a responsibility to work to protect the most vulnerable among us and must do everything we can to address these unacceptable rates of domestic violence. that is why one of the fers pieces of legislation i co-sponsored as a member of congress was the violence against women re-authorization act. protecting people from violence by their partners should not be a partisan issue. and it was appalling in the last congress that such vital legislation got caught up in this partisan gridlock. with that in mind, i am thrilled to see members from both sides of the aisle speaking today on this important issue and you'll notice both democrats and

republicans wearing purple pins or purple ties to highlight october as domestic violence awareness month. domestic violence is not a partisan issue. and not just a woman's issue. it's a family issue. it's a community issue. it's an economic issue. and a moral issue. that is why i specifically recruited male colleagues to participate in this special order hour and you will see many of them here today wearing purple ties. we as men can help draw awareness not only to how important it is to work toward ending demest exviolence but also to the fact that domestic violence is an issue that we have a responsibility to engage and not to dismiss as only a women's issue. as role models and other males we have a crucial part in this fight and stopping domestic violence will only occur when the main perpetrators of these crimes, which are men, learn to stop hurting their partners. we as men not only can, but must, make addressing this issue

a priority. on international women's day, i hosted a round table discussion at a shelter in my district called safe space, where i heard from both survivors and advocates about the challenges they face to keep women and children safe and the importance of federal funding to keep these programs operating. this has round table highlighting the -- highlighted the urgency of working together to address this pressing issue. i am honored to have jill borowitz here, the c.e.o. of the shelter that hosted this round table, to be in attendance with us today and i want to take this opportunity to thank her for her work on behalf of the survivors of domestic abuse. unfortunately, what we are doing here today almost was not able to take place due to the government shutdown. jill knows all too well what the shutdown did back home and the effects of it. -- what the effects of it were on our district and across the country. one of the less talked about

effects was its impact on shelters and services like safe space that were forced to close their doors and suspend services for more than a week because vawa funds were unavailable. let me repeat, the shutdown prevented women and children who were at risk of domestic violence from receiving services and shelter. this is unconscionable. while the crisis may have been manufactured she shutdown was very real and the consequences were also real. and as shown that partisanship and dysfunction in congress are a serious threat to the prevention of nestic violence and i hope we can call agree that this should no longer be tolerated. i look forward to working together with my colleagues both male and feel and members from both parties to continue to fund important programs that help provide assistance and shelter to the victims of domestic violence, resources to law enforcement to help them adequately address these issues

on the ground and investments and programs that can help stop and break the vicious cycle of domestic violence in our communities. again i want to thank mr. green for his leadership on this issue. it's important we bring this to the forefront, no matter where you're from or what party you're from, this is something that needs to be discussed. i yield back the balance of my time. mr. groan: i thank my fellow fey floridian, i of course am from texas now but my roots are in florida. i thank you so much. mr. speaker, how much time do we have left? the speaker pro tempore: you have approximately 12 minutes remaining. mr. green: thank you, mr. speaker. i'm honored at this time to recognize another texan a texan from the 23rd district, who served 22 years, mr. speaker, in the state house, a texan who serves on the agriculture committee, a texan who is a strong supporter of domestic awareness, who voted for the

re-authorization of the vawa and i might say, a texan who started his career in congress extending his hand across the aisle. he is one who not only preaches bipartisanship, he practices it. i'm honored to ask that my friend, the honorable pete gallego, consume as much time as he may. mr. gallego: thank you very much. i appreciate your leadership on this issue. it is incredibly important. as i listen to congressman murphy and others talk on this issue and you realize that one of every three women will feel the impact of demest exviolence in her lifetime, you have to realize that even among the people in this room, we know people who have been impacted by domestic violence. all of us have a mom, many of us have sisters. domestic violence can impact

anyone. even though it's not openly spoken about many times, even though it's not openly addressed in our society, and even though many feel that it's something that can never happen to them, the truth is, it could happen to anybody. and it could happen to people other than women. 14% of the victims of domestic violence are men. in 2012 in texas alone, 114 people were killed. in the district i represent from el paso to san antonio, there were eight cases of domestic violence. everyone here, many of you have met my son who has become the center of my universe. i will tell you that chern are incredibly important, they're certainly important to me and to the members of this chamber, the members of this body. and the truth is that kids are also impacted by violence.

because many, many times a child is also assaulted. in fact, according to a task force report in several instances, the young chern at the scene of the crime was also attacked. and in fact, they were stabbed or strangled or shot or kidnapped or some violence was committed on the chern. these numbers are heartbreaking. there are far too many people empacted and the sad part is that most of the time, there are many signs of trouble. you can see it. there's a time in the life of every problem where it's big enough to see but still small enough to solve. researchers and service provide verse already identified some common characteristics that help predict the risk factor as a precursor to intimate partner murders. stalking, for example. stalking ranks as the top indicator of risk.

those cases % of involve at least one episode of stalking within a year prior to the murder. one in six women report having experienced stalking which made them feel very fearful or believe that they or someone close to them would be harmed or telled. intimate partner violence man test -- manifests itself from demumizing attitudes and beliefs and results in cruelty, brutality, degradation of the victim's -- victims' physical, mental and spiritual well being. 99% of all women who have died as a result of domestic violence never stayed in a shelter. 95% had no contact with assert fied domestic violence center within five years of their death there is help out there, we just need to get people to the help and the only way we can do that is if more people are aware of

the resources that are available to victims of domestic violence. as i said, all of us, statistically, we are going to know someone who has been impacted by domestic violence and it's very important that we all work together to make sure that they all have the help that they need. on any fwiven day in the u.s., over 60 thousand women and -- 60,000. think about that. 60,000 women and kids are residing in domestic violence shelters. the shelters provide a critical, critical, critical service and it's up to us, our states, our communities, and our fellow citizens to make a difference, to make sure that we step up to the plate and keep these resources available, keep the help where we need the help so that we can stop those hearts from breaking, we can mend those lives and we can help those

kids. i had the great privilege as mr. green alluded, to serving in the texas state legislature, including severing on the committee of jurisprudence, and i carried a lot of legislation for victims of domestic violence. i'm proud of those activities, i'm proud of that opportunity to be of sr. vis. i hope that all 435 members of this body and the 100 members on the other side of this building will all together in a very bipartisan fashion stand up and say, let's put an end to domestic violence. thank you so much for your time. mr. green: i thank my colleague from the state of texas. i would also mention to my colleague, unfortunately, one study concluded that 10,401 domestic violence victims reached out for help but were turned away because of a lack of resources. there is still great work to be done and i thank you for

continuing to do this great work. god bless you. at this time, mr. speaker, we have another texan from the 18th congressional district in houston, texas, who serves on homeland security as well as judiciary, we're going to ask that our friend the honorable sheila jackson lee move to the odium. and how much time do we have left, mr. speaker? the speaker pro tempore: the gentleman from texas has six minutes left. mr. green: i ask that members govern themselves accordingly with six minutes left. ms. jackson lee: let me thank the gentleman from texas for his service and for his commitment to an issue that is so vital and important to the nation and that is protection of all americans from domestic violence. and there is a long history to the journey of this congress, to responding to the women and men,

both in the civilian life and in the united states military. i rise today to respond and respect that we are acknowledging, commemorating domestic violence prevention month. i remember the journey that we took in getting the violence ainst women act, the prevention of that, with chairman hyde. and remember in the early stages of the 1990's the then attempt to re-authorize this legislation . the good news was that chairman hyde, a republican and ranking member conyers at that time, and senators on both sides of the aisle joined together in one big room to come together and acknowledge the importance of protecting women and then of course to acknowledge that

violence, domestic violence is a disease, an epidemic that spreads beyond the question of whether you are male or female. and so the staggering loss of life that has come about because people have not found a refuge, and for those of us who have heard firsthand stories -- as a member of the houston areas women center, the board that in houston -- the board that, if you will, had supervision over local women's centers, where women could go, i have known and seen stories that would argue so vigorously for more funding and more recognition and more laws that would protect these women. so i am glad that even though the journey was even longer to get the violence against women act passed in the last congress,

that we ultimately after many petitions, that we were involved in, saw a bipartisan vote in the house and in the senate, much longer in the house, that allowed us to go to the president's desk. so my remarks, as i summarize, are to say that this is an ongoing cause. domestic violence comes from tension and pressure, but it results in the violence that results in the loss of life. time after time women and children suffer a loss of life through violence by a spouse or a loved one and of course we know that it occurs with men. time after time women in the united states military suffer the act of violence, domestic violence, or violence against women. so i want to thank the gentleman

for giving me the opportunity to at least acknowledge that this is a somber occasion and there is great need for continued support. my last sentence, mr. green, you mentioned resources. i hope as we leave this floor that we'll all reinforce the elimination of the sequester and a budget process that will allow the funding of vital programs like the violence against women act. i thank the gentleman for yielding. mr. green: because time is of the essence, i will move quickly to the gentleman from the 41st district of california, the honorable mark takano. mr. takano: i thank the gentleman from texas for yielding time. i stand today to join my colleagues in recognizing domestic violence awareness month. the unfortunate reality is that domestic violence is something that affects every community in america, as it touches every race, class, gender and sexual orientation. millions of domestic violence incidents are reported each year and many more go unreported.

too often domestic violence remains within the confines of the household, as many victims do not contact law enforcement or go public, often out of fear. when it was first observed 26 years ago, domestic violence awareness month sought to sign law, by educating the public, empowering the victims and punishing the offenders and in the 26 years since, we have made great progress, partly due to the violence against women act, which provides critical support to programs for victims and their families, as well as resources for law enforcement and community organizations. with a 51% increase in reporting by women and a 37% increase in reporting by men, the results have been nothing short of incredible. domestic violence is wrong and no victim should be hesitant to report it. i encourage every american who feels threatened or who knows someone in a dangerous situation to contact law enforcement or a community organization. together we can strive to end

domestic violence and abuse -- and end abuse in our communities. thank you, i yield back to the gentleman. mr. green: thank you. and, mr. speaker, i do thank you for your indulgence. you have been liberal with the time. and i want to remind persons that while we do this on an annual basis in the month of october, we do want to make domestic violence awareness an everyday activity. thank you, mr. speaker, and we yield back the balance of our time. the speaker pro tempore: the gentleman yields back. under the speaker's announced policy of january 3, 2013, the chair recognizes the gentleman from texas, mr. gohmert, for 30 minutes.

the gentleman is recognized. mr. gohmert: thank you, mr. speaker. this has been an interesting week for a number of reasons. mr. speaker, i'd like to call to attention a letter that was written by chairman darryl issa, y friend from california, to secretary kathleen sebelius at the u.s. department of health nd human services this week. first paragraph, after saying,

dear madam secretary, he says, the committee on oversight and government reform is investigating the insurance exchange application online at healthcare.gov. established by the department of health and human services as part of this investigation. we're writing to request information related to voter registration data collected during the application process. on further down, the letter says, while h.h.s. and its contractors continue to struggle with the task of processing applications for health insurance coverage, the agency uses the website to collect voter registration information. once an applicant completes the online application for health care coverage, a dialogue box appears asking, would you like to register to vote? in light of the national voter registration act of 1993, also

known as the motor voter act, which requires any agency that provides public assistance to provide individuals with an opportunity to register to vote, the department decided to include the voter registration option on the health care application. the inclusion of this voter registration may give applicants the impression that registering to vote is somehow tied to receiving health care benefits, such as insurance subsidies. given the well-documented flaws with the health care application process, the public lacks confidence that h.h.s. has the ability to safeguard applicants' voter information. documents reviewed by the committee show that applicants may submit personal information over the internet during the application process without encryption, potentially exposing

personally identifiable information to interception and abuse. further down it says, further it's unclear how h.h.s. uses the voter information it collects, once a user submits this data on the website. am can'ts -- applicants rightly expect that only state election officials will have access to their information. voter registration contains important personal details that are valuable to various individuals and organizations. toward the end, chairman issa says, these facts raise questions as to what happens when the same individual expresses the desire to register to vote multiple times. h.h.s. does not appear to have the capacity to differentiate between duplicates and first-time applicants. in short, it's unclear what happens to voter registration information once h.h.s. receives

it. applicants have an expectation that the federal government is not transmitting private information to third parties, knowingly or unknowingly. but interesting questions raised by our friend, chairman issa, should also be noted that the chairman of the subcommittee on national security, my friend jason chaffetz, also signed that letter. so, that certainly caused some digging in our office to find out what this was about. and then we find information .bout demos.org report by lisa jade bennetts, called "building a healthy democracy." registering 68 million people to vote through health benefit

exchanges. well, that's interesting. makes you wonder what they're up to. they're involved in this health are.org, apparently. and their own information, from demos.org, says they're going to use the health benefit exchanges apparently to try to register 68 million people to vote. so while people in america, and i've talked to many who are just scared because they've got someone sticking their family -- they've lost their insurance that the president promised they could keep, they're scared about the super high deductibles they've gotten, they're scared that under obamacare they have

been sentenced to go from full-time work to part-time work, which means, as i've heard from some, that, gee, that means we've now had to go on public assistance because -- i never wanted welfare, didn't need welfare, until the so-called affordable care act forced us into it. so people are concerned all over america. the majority want obamacare gone. the website's not working. and then we find out that actually the website seems to be as concerned about getting people registered to vote and getting their invaluable voter nformation as they are about dealing with the crisis in american lives involving their health care and their health

insurance. you got people with an alterior motive that are apparently not just signing up people from the goodness of their hearts, because demos makes clear in their own information, we're going to use this health benefit exchanges to register voters. well, now, who would they be registering to vote? because we're all in favor of people eligible to the unfinished business is the vote oning. although we know that -- to vote voting. although we know that the supreme court has made clear that indiana's law requiring a photo i.d., the attorney general's rules that require a photo i.d. to get in to see him, the democratic national committee requiring photo i.d.'s to get into their convention, having to have a photo i.d. to get alcohol or cigarettes or basically get on a plane, or get

on most any conveyance and interstate commerce, you've got to have photo i.d. and states like texas said, if you can't afford it, then just fill out this and we'll take care of it for you. . so on the one hand, we have an attorney general, department of justice, doing everything they possibly can, even in the face of a supreme court decision saying photo i.d. requirements are ok. they still are going after states, which i would humbly submit, mr. speaker, this tissue disenfranchises legitimate voters when the attorney general of the united states takes action to prevent states from preventing fraudulent votes. i was shocked when people called out for international observers

to come watch our own election process. this is america. we don't need international observers to watch our process. so i thought. and yet, international observers watched our process of voting thatere absolutely shocked we were so cavalier about who got to vote. no identification requirements. clearly people were in a position to vote more than once if they wanted to. people were in position to vote who were not u.s. citizens. because -- and people could vote multiple times. i know in iraq, i was over there right after their first election and those people had had to dip their fingers in permanent ink that they wore around for weeks until it finally wore off but it made sure that even in iraq,

that they were protecting the integrity of their voting system further than what we're doing here. well, this demos.org, they're going to register, they say, 60 million people to vote through health benefit exchanges, so the thing to do, it seemed to me, was to get their annual report system of mr. speaker, that's what i got. demos annual 2012 report. see who these people are that are going to register voters, i'm sure they would be fair and register voters from all walks of life. oh, and then here we see, the rappaport, he's -- being the president, he's got a nice letter from the president, board chair. then you look up a little background, who is this miles

rappaport an the article from keywiki says miles s. rappaport new e leftist president of york-based think tank demos. while studying at harvard in the late 1960's, he was active in the radical students for democratic society, s.d.s. mr. speaker, it seems like, back in my mind, s.d.s. evolved into -- some of them did -- weather underground that bill ayers would know a great deal about, being that he held the first fundraiser for the man who is now our president, but the article goes on to say that harvard s.d.s. campaigned against u.s. military involvement in vietnam, obviously a lot of people did. and the presence of reserve officer training corps, rotc, on

campus. april 7, 1969 letter to the "harvard crimson" opposing the harvard president's support for he rotc, miles rappaport and , wrote, .s. ears quote, to conclude, the -- thent and the support president may support the u.s. military and the policies. we feel the rotc must go because we oppose the policies of the united states and oppose the military that perpetuates them they have lines are clearly drawn. the time to take sides is now. well, that was miles rappaport,

the president of demos, that is going to register 68 million people through health benefit exchanges that most of us thought were actually going to be trying to help people get health insurance. they're going to gather their and personal information allegedly get them registered to vote and you can't help but wonder what people like former s.d.s. leader miles rappaport nt to do with people's personal identification information. so looking on further back in the demo annual 2012 report, see what kind of fundraisers they've had, they had a 2012 transforming america awards and gala celebration so wellock down, who are the honorary

cheers? there's bertha lewis. the head of -- well some may remember, she was head of something called acorn. so the former head of acorn, right in there, honorary chairman, helping demos that's going to register 68 million people through the health benefits exchanges. who else -- oh there's richard trumpka, president of the afl-cio. oh and here's our friends at service employees international ion, seiu, and of course the international union u.a.w. so that gives us a little feel about what demos is doing. but -- a little further examination as to who is it that's gathering this very personal information that demos wants to use to get 68 million

people registered to vote through the health benefit exchanges and there's a lot of issues that -- questions that eed to be answered, not only how are they using the personal information of people that just wanted to protect their families , sohemselves with insurance who is it that's actually gathering this information to help demos in their efforts? there's an article here from p.j. media by david steinberg, draining the swamp, top 40 troubling listings from the obamacare navigator assistance security nightmare. article said, last week we reported the honor system is being used to confirm the

identify canned -- identity and certify keags of navigators/sisters. the find local help feature on healthcare.gov refers consumers to potential predators. we have since reviewed state by state every single navigator that healthcare.gov currently displays to the public via, quote, find local help,en quote, that people can click on this search revealed two additional dangers of the navigator assister system. it's not just a defunct or problematic website. there's a problem with who is doing this, who is gathering information who is this nightmare and train wreck of a website sending people to? this has number one, the consumer is vulnerable but so is the taxpayer. the program is rife with

organizations that have advocated for open borders, have helped illegal immigrants dodge apprehension, have attempted to give illegal emigrants access to additional taxpayer funded resources. such organizations are obviously -- are obvious risks to fraudulently register illegal immigrants for subsidized health insurance and as such have no business being included in the government-funded navigator assister program. number two, regulations require navigators assisters to be unbiased. unbiased in quotes. however, many organizations that were founded partly or entirely to advocate for politically left-leaning policies including causes such as universal health care, single payer and obamacare itself, are nonetheless part of the program. many of these groups already receive government funding. which further raises the obvious

conflict of interest issues. as many will be paid according to the number of consumers successfully registered for an obamacare plan, such groups have several incentives to steer consumers away from free market plans that may be superior options. outside of the list below, only a handful of suspicious open borders or politically biased organizations have been exposed nationally but below is a list of 40 to spur the much-needed discussion. the list is divided into three categories. some listings may fit more than one category. but all are listed only according to the primary concern regarding each. number one, open borders groups. these groups exist in part or in whole to secure the greater deral benefits for illegal imgrants. as such they're a risk to register illegals for subsidized

insurance. number two, politically biased organizations. obamacare regulations require all registered help to be, quote, unbiased, unquote, yet these groups include leftist political advocacy as a primary part of their mission. presenting conflict of interest problems. additionally they have financial ensentivs to steer consumers away from free market plans. three, suspicious regarding legitimacy, of great concern considering healthcare.gov does not guarantee the legitimacy of any listings while some of these listings may be legitimate healthcare.gov, to approve and expose these suspicious listings -- and expose these suspicious listings with no help in their final choice. finally the listings are incomplete. community health centers have generally been executed -- excluded from it though the sector has generally been

supportive of the push for obamacare. if included, this list would be several times longer. also, a part two of this article is forthcoming. but an open borders group. farmworkers without borders this open borders organization has participated in countless rallies and activities activated -- advocating for decriminalization of illegal immigration. for one example, read director torres' march in 2006. it quotes from that article and said the five-mile march was marked by chanting and waving erican and mexican flags and plaque cards condemning those who helped with the bill. emma torres, and director of --

director of farmworkers without borders, stated a committee had recently been formed to plan the may 1 event. around 30 people formed the committee in order to promote a boycott of commercial goods and services and a walk yacht of jobs and schools. the purpose of the committee, said torres, is for the united states to feel the weight of the contribution of imgrants because, quote, a lot of people deny the contribution that we make as legal or illegal immigrants and they don't want to see that we have so much power in the economy. unquote. number two, his pan exwomen's organization of arkansas. this group's website boasts of being an affiliate of leading radical open borders organization lara sa. -- la raza. it quote, the success of hwoa, hispanic women's organization of arkansas, programs and events

also lies in its affiliations with local, state, and national organizations. in 2001, hwoa was selected to participate in the emerging latino community's nichetive of the national council of la raza. since october 1 of 2004, hwoa has been an affiliate of nclr, whose mission is to reduce poverty andties crimination and improve life opportunities for hispanic americans. sounds nice but they are not unbiased. and again, mr. speaker, these are organizations that are listed at healthcare.gov, pay lirntly -- apparently to be navigators or assisters to help people with their health care choices, but obviously these organizations seem to have other motivations. number three is the center for pan-asian community services. this organization has expressed

its support of just about every attempt to legalize the u.s. illegal population and adegreesally expressed displeasure with voter i.d. law. they rallied against the supreme court decision in shelby vs. holder, inviting members to participate in, quote, a voter suppression update teleconference. they approved of the associate press's decision to remove, quote, illegal immigrant, unquote, from their style guide. they frequently and enthusiastically express support for the passage of obamacare. 2007 when the idea of a $10,000 fine enstead of deportation for illegal immigrants was floated in washington, d.c., cpac's executive director gave the following statement -- people who are in the country illegally tend to be among the poorest cleents at the center for pan-asian community services said the executive director of

the nonprofit system of she doubts many could pay a fine beyond a couple thousand dollars. most of the undocumented, they are really underpaid, she said. in a way, they've already paid society. . . the first thing that appears on the website is a statement from he organization. involved in the struggle to stop deportations and having a moratorium. we march and fight for the rights of immigrants. we march to stop the deportation for the separation of our families. we're asking obama to stop the deportations now but instead while the senate is debating to pass an immigration reform, they're deporting and separating ven more families than before. 2010, p.r.c.c.'s executive director, jose e. lopez, was

awarded the prestigious 2010 health award for the health and medicine policy research group. the health and medicine policy research group is an independent policy center promoting social justice and health care quality or the last 29 years, and -- i feel like there ought to be a drum roll, but in chicago. now, it's important to understand, you know, we welcome immigration, we need immigration in this country. it is freshwater flowing into this country, but it's got to be pursuant to the rule of law, t's got to be legal and even 60%-plus of hispanic adults agree, we need to secure the border before we do anything else in the way of reform. and it's also worth noting that if a group like this had their way, we would never be able to deport terrorists. we had some that overstayed their visa.

should have been deported. this group would be against that. which means they would be allowed to stay in country and carry out the 9/11 attacks which they did. some of us have been pushing that the law be followed and if people overstay their visa, then legal action be taken and people be deported. and properly followed up. this administration and even the prior administration had not been doing there. nor had the clinton administration. but it's something that needs to be done if we're going to be a nation of laws. yet these are the very people that are out there assisting people with their health care.org filings -- health care.org filings, getting their personal information, personal voter information. gee, wouldn't it be nice if some of the groups that the i.r.s., after it was weaponized an began

targeting, wouldn't it be niece in -- nice if conservative groups were allowed to register people for health care.org -- healthcare.gov and gather all of this personal information? i'm being facetious, mr. speaker, because under the law, to be a navigator or an assister, you're supposed to be unbiased. unbiased. and there's nothing but bias we're seeing so far. . mber six, world relief group operators of victors assistance program, that's great. but which helps crime victims concerned about pursuing justice due to their illegal status. oh, we're back to that. a bilingual victims assistance program began in 1997 with funding from the north atlantic governor's crime commission. this program has been successful due to the trust we have developed with the latino population and our collaborative

relationship with community agencies. several factors limit latinos' access to law enforcement and emergency services, including fear of the unknown, fear of undocument -- or documentation checks. and lack of awareness of victims having to pay for an attorney. number six, world relief chicago. this organization's position on illegal immigration appears clear. they currently -- are currently assisting, quote, children of illegal immigrants in delaying their deportation through the daca program. their twitter account links to an article tight titled "undocumented my grants in u.s. gaining improved access to higher education." number seven, alliance of filipinos for immigrant rights and empowerment. from their site's civic reflection page, this quote, chicago advocacy group for immigrant rights, the alliance for filipinos for immigrant rights and empowerment, supports

comprehensive immigration reform and more just treatment of undocumented immigrants. since late last year, afire has been using conversation about readings by pablo narudo franscaca and others to develop this organizational structure and mission. so, it's interesting, we've got so many groups and they're trying to help people who are illegally in the country. and yet they're helping people who are illegally in the country and democratows is a part of this and -- demos is a part of this and their stated goal is to get 68 million new voters registered. well, this goes on and on, mr. speaker. we've got 40 organizations like planned parenthood that are in here registering voters, apparently part of the

navigators assister, i guess they were helping with the most -- with demos. well, we need to know about these things. a lot of politically active arab american action network, american family services, campaign for better health care, c.f.l. workers assistance committee, southern united neighborhoods, just on and on. inaffordablehousing ink, chapman l.l.c., family health care foundation, too hurt to cry, cutting edge health options, home bound services, n.w.e. beginning medical service, village communicator, metro east area communities for empowerment. we've got a bunch of folks that are supposed to be assisting in navigating for people that don't -- aren't able to get through the healthcare.gov and they have

political motivation, their goal is to register 68 million new voters. no wonder this website's failing. if that's the case, that it was being used for political purposes, what a disaster. people scared about their health care and these people just want to further their own political interests. mr. speaker, it's time we worried about americans and against fraudulent voting and got america back on track. to survive for the years to come and flourish. with that i yield back. the speaker pro tempore: the gentleman yields back the balance of his time. the chair lays before the house a communication. the clerk: the honorable the speaker, house of representatives, sir, this is to notify you formally, pursuant to rule 8 of the rules of the house of representatives, that i have been served with a subpoena issued by the united states district court for the eastern district of michigan for

testimony in a criminal case. after consultation with the office of general counsel, i have determined that compliance with the subpoena is consistent with the precedence and privileges of the house. sincerely, karen. the speaker pro tempore: the chair lays before the house a message. the clerk: to the congress of the united states, section 202-d of the national emergencies act, 50, u.s.c., 1622-d, provides for the automatic termination of an actual emergency unless within the 90-day period prior to the anniversary date of its declaration the president publishes in the federal register and transmits to the congress a notice stating that the emergency is to continue in effect beyond the anniversary date. in accordance with this provision i have sent to the federal register for publication the enclosed notice stating that the sudan emergency is to

continue in effect beyond november 3, 2013. the crisis constituted by the actions and policies of the government of sudan that led to the declaration of a national emergency in executive order 13067 of november 3, 1997, and the expansion of that emergency in executive order 13400 of april 26, 2006, and with respect to which additional steps were taken in executive order 13412 of october 13, 2006, has not been resolved. these action -- these actions and policies are hostile to u.s. interests and continue to pose an unusual and extraordinary threat to the national security and foreign policy of the united states. therefore i have determined that it is necessary to continue the national emergency declared with respect to sudan and maintain and enforce the sanctions against sudan to respond to this threat. signed, barack obama, the white

house, october 30, 2013. the speaker pro tempore: the message will be referred to the committee on foreign affairs and ordered printed. for what purpose does the gentleman from texas seek recognition? mr. gohmert: mr. speaker, i ask unanimous consent that when the house adjourns today, it adjourn to meet at 10:00 a.m. on friday, november 1, 2013, unless it has received a message from the senate transmitting its concurrence in the house concurrent resolution 62, in which case the house shall stand adjourned pursuant to that concurrent resolution. the speaker pro tempore: without objection. mr. gohmert: pursuant to the order of the house today, mr. speaker, i move that the house do now hereby adjourn. 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 agreed to. accordingly, pursuant to the previous order of the house of today, the house stands adjourned until 10:00 a.m. on friday, november 1, 2013, unless

it sooner has received a message from the senate transmitting its adoption of house concurrent resolution 62, which the house shall stand adjourned pursuant to the concurrent resolution. >> lawmakers voted and passed several measures that allowed banks to expand swaps. the house approved a resolution disapproving of the debt limit increase. as part of the government shutdown. three votes in support come from republicans. the resolution has little chance in halting the increase. you can watch the house live here on c-span when members eturn on tuesday, november 12.

kathleen sebelius testified on capitol hill today and apologized for the problems with the healthcare.gov web site. a potentially ed high security risk. of her d a half hours testimony tonight at c-span at 8:00. president obama spoke in boston. he touted massachusetts health insurance coverage as the model for his plan and the massachusetts health care law also had early problems. before the president, we'll hear remarks from governor patrick. cheers and applause]

this sox nation afternoon! [cheers and applause] >> ladies and gentlemen, brothers and sisters, fellow citizens, i have the high honor of introducing to you the president of the united states. [cheers and applause] but, of course, you folks already know him. [laughter] >> so, as the president is standing just off stage, i want to take my time here at the podium -- [laughter] >> to introduce all of you to him. in this storied hall today, mr. president, are the architects and advocates for health care reform in massachusetts. [cheers and applause]

this gathering right here is the broad coalition, providers, payers, patients, consumers, policy makers, academics, business and labor from both political parties or no party at all, who came together to invent health care reform in massachusetts and then importantly stuck together to refine it as we move forward. cheers and applause] >> you are the leaders who when we learned a hard lesson or hit a wall, stuck with it and with each other. because of the shared value that health care is a public good and that every citizen deserves access to quality affordable care. cheers and applause]

>> quality, affordable care accessible to all improves lives and in many cases, saves lives. it gives peace of mind and economic security to working families. it increases productivity for large and small employers alike. it creates jobs and contributes to the strength of the massachusetts economy. it is a powerful statement of who we are as a commonwealth. and by every -- [applause] >> by every reasonable measure, it has been a success for us here in the commonwealth of massachusetts. [cheers and applause] >> how do we know? how do we know? virtually every resident in the commonwealth is insured today. more private companies -- move private companies offer

insurance to their employees than ever before. over 90% of our residents have a primary care physician. preventive care is up and health disparities are down. ost important of all -- [applause] >> most important of all on we are healthier both physically and mentally. expansion itself has added only about 1% of state spending to our budget. and thanks to the collective continued hard work of this coalition, premiums are finally easing up. premium base rates were increasing over 16% a few years ago. today, increases average less than 2%. [applause] >> and thanks to the president, america can look forward to the successes that massachusetts has experienced these last seven

years. cheers and applause] >> the truth is, policy only matters when and where it touches people. i know this policy matters because i have met people all across the commonwealth in every walk of life whose lives have been improved or saved because of the care our reforms made possible. a couple of them are here today. laura, where are you? there you are. owns her own hair salon and responsible for providing health insurance to her family of five including her son mason. he has a rare genetic condition. laura is able to afford his medicine because they found coverage through our connector, our version of the a.c.a. marketplace. this policy matters. [applause]

>> david works as a waiter. where are you, david? there you are. thank you for being here. soon after coverage through the connector, david was diagnosed with hodgkins lymphoma. he is back to his old life and swimming for exercise. od bless you, david. [applause] >> brian left his law firm job to become an entrepreneur in massachusetts. brian, where are you? because he was able to access quality insurance directly through the connector, he is chasing his entrepreneurial dream and on his way of becoming a creator of jobs for others without being exposed to a health emergency along the way. good luck to you.

[applause] >> hundreds of thousands of massachusetts people don't fear going bankrupt from medical bills or being thrown off their insurance if they get really sick or being declared ineligible for insurance because they were seriously ill sometime in the past. if policy matters where it touches people, mr. president, this proud policy means a lot. health care reform is working for the people of massachusetts. and it will work for the people of america. cheers and applause] >> my republican predecessors signed the legislation to expand health care reform in massachusetts right here in this room on this very stage. chief legislative partner was the democratic state senator who

was here then and here today. where are you? thank you. [applause] >> so was our beloved ted kennedy. so were many of the members of the coalition who are here again today. and they have worked right along side my team and me these last seven years to refine and improve the means while staying true to the end. i am proud of what we and they have accomplished, and i think they are proud, too. and ought to be. [applause] >> but our launch seven years ago was not flawless. we asked an i.t. staffer who has been with us since the beginning, and this is what he said, and i'm quoting.

we didn't have a complicated eligibility problem then. we had issues with data mapping. our provider searches were not good and the web site was a constant work in progress over the first few years, but other than that, it was smooth. [laughter] >> does that sound familiar, mr. president? we started out with a web site that needed work, we had a lot of people with reasonable questions and not a good enough way to get them the answer, but people were patient. we had good leadership and that same coalition stuck with it and with us to work through the fixes, text surge and all. why? why? because health reform in massachusetts, like the affordable care act, is not a web site. it's a values statement. cheers and applause]

>> it's about insuring people against a medical catastrophe. it's about being our brothers and our sisters' keeper by helping others help themselves. the web site glitches are inconvenient and annoying. they must be fixed and i'm confident they will be. but i hope you know, mr. president, that the same folks who pretend to be outraged about the web site not working didn't want the a.c.a. to work in the first place. [applause] >> the urgency of fixing what's not working is, as we all know, about the american people who need simple, reliable and convenient access to information about coverage, not about

silencing critics who will never be silent. you and the congress looked to massachusetts as a model for how to eninsure working people and how to lead better, more productive lives. as you turn to the vital work of making that federal i.t. system work, we also want to be a model for how to keep your eye on the prize and how working together, you put people first. the people here all in this coalition totally get that. so, mr. president, welcome to !he capital of red sox nation [cheers and applause] and welcome also to the future of affordable, acceptable health care for everybody.

ladies and gentlemen, the president of the united states! ♪ [cheers and applause] > hello, boston! t's good to be back in boston! [cheers and applause] >> good to be back in boston because one of america's best overnor introduced me, deval patrick! [cheers and applause] >> good to see congressman bill keating here.

give bill a big round of applause. [applause] >> i want to praise somebody who is not here -- i just left him, but he wears his heart on his sleeve. he loves this city so much and it shows in what he has been doing for years now, one of mayora's best mayors, the of boston. >> and good to see all of you. devaljust at the airport, met me along with the mayor and the mayor went back to work so he could wrap up in time for the first pitch. [laughter] >> i'm well aware that a presidential visit is not the biggest thing going on today in oston.

i tried to grow a beard, but michelle wasn't having it. i was old enough to remember a time when the red sox were not in the world series three times in 10 years, but i know the chance to win won at home for the first time since 1918 is a pretty special thing. [cheers and applause] >> so i promise, we will be done here in time for everybody to head over to fenway and see big api blast another homer. [cheers and applause] >> the reason i'm here, though,

is because this is the hall where seven years ago, democrats and republicans came together to make health reform a reality for the people of massachusetts. it's where then governor mitt , mney, democratic legislators senator ted kennedy, many of the folks who are here today joined forces to connect the progressive vision of health care for all with some ideas about markets and competition that had long been championed by conservatives. and as deval just said, it worked. it worked. cheers and applause]

>> mr. president, stop the pipeline. >> ok. we're talking about health care today -- >> mr. president -- > it's ok. > that is the wrong rally. cheers and applause] >> we had the climate change rally back in the summer. [laughter] >> this is the health care rally. cheers and applause]

>> health care reform in this state was a success. that doesn't mean it was perfect right away. there were early problems to solve. there were changes that had to be made. anybody here who is involved in it can tell you that. as deval just said, enrollment was extremely slow. within a month, only about 100 people had signed up. 100. but then 2,000 had signed up. and then a few more thousand after that. and by the end of the year, 36,000 people had signed up. and the community all came together. you even had the red sox help enlist people to help them get them covered. and pretty soon the number of

young uninsured people had plummeted. when recession struck, the financial security of health care sheltered families from deeper hardship. and today, there is nearly universal coverage in massachusetts. and the vast majority of their citizens are happy with their coverage. cheers and applause] >> and by the way, all the parade of horribles, the worst predictions about health care reform in massachusetts never came through. they are the same arguments that you are hearing now. businesses didn't stop covering workers. the share of employers who offered insurance increased. people didn't get left behind. racial disparities decreased. care didn't become unaffordable.

costs tracked what was happening in other places that wasn't covering everybody. now, mitt romney and i ran a long and spirited campaign against one another, but i always believed that when he was governor here in massachusetts, he did the right thing on health care. and then deval did the right thing by picking up the torch and worked to make the law work even better. and it's because you guys had a proven model that we built the affordable care act on this template of proven bipartisan success, your law was the model for the nation's law. cheers and applause] >> so let's look what's

happened. today, the affordable care act requires insurance companies to abide by some of the strongest consumer protections this country has ever known, a true patients' bill of rights. [applause] >> no more discriminating against kids with pre-existing conditions. [cheers and applause] >> no more dropping your policy when you get sick and need it most. [cheers and applause] >> no more lifetime limits or restricted annual limits. [cheers and applause] >> most plans have to cover free preventive care like mammograms and birth control. cheers and applause] >> young people can stay on their parents' plans until they turn 26. all of is in place right now, it

is working right now. cheers and applause] >> now, the last element of this began on october 1, when the affordable care act created a new marketplace for quality, private insurance plans for the 15% or so of americans who don't have health care and 5% of americans who have to buy it on their own and not part of a group, which means they don't get as good a deal. and this new marketplace was built on the massachusetts model. it allows these americans who have been locked out to get a better deal from insurers. they are pooling their purchasing power as one big group and insuresers want their business, which means they give them a better deal, and they compete for that business. and as a result, insurers in the marketplace, they can't use your

medical history to charge you more. if you have been sick, you finally have the same chance to buy quality affordable health care as everybody else. a lot of people will qualify for new tax credits under this law that will bring down costs even further. so that if you lose your job or you start a new business or you are self-employed and you are a young person looking at several jobs until you find one that sticks, you can stay insured, insurance that goes with you and gives you freedom, without fear of accidents or illness will derail your dreams. this marketplace is open now. insurance companies are competing for that business. the deal is good. the prices are low. but let's face it, we have had a problem. the web site hasn't worked the

way it's supposed to over the last couple of weeks. and as a consequence, people haven't had a chance to see how good the prices for quality, affordable health insurance through these marketplaces really are. ultimately this web site, healthcare.gov will be the easiest way to shop and buy these plans because you can compare prices and see what kind of coverage it provides. but, look, there's no denying it, right now, the web site is too slow, too many people have gotten stuck and i'm not happy about it. and neither are a lot of americans who need health care and they are trying to figure out how they can sign up as quickly as possible. so there's no excuse for it. and i take full responsibility for making sure it gets fixed

asap and are working overtime to improve it every day, every day. cheers and applause] >> and more people are successfully buying these new plans online than they were a couple of weeks ago. i expect more people will be able to buy conveniently online every single day as we move forward. we are going to get these problems resolved. now, in the meantime, you can still apply for coverage over the phone or by mail or in person, because those plans are waiting. and you are still able to get the kind of reliable, affordable health insurance that has been out of reach for too many people for too long. i am old enough to remember when there was not such a thing as a web site. [laughter] >> i know that's shocking to people. but the point is i'm confident

these marketplaces will work because massachusetts has shown that the model works and we know what's being offered by these insurers. [applause] >> we know it's going to work. >> and so far choice and competition in the new national marketplaces have helped keep costs lower than we even projected. in fact nearly half of all single uninsured 18-24 year olds may be able to buy insurance for 50 bucks a month or less, less than your cell phone bill, less han your cable bill. [applause] >> and one study shows that nearly 6-10 uninsured americans may find coverage for 100 bucks or less even if they are older

than 34. if every governor was working as governor val or o'malley in maryland or governor cuomo in new york, about 8-10 americans would be getting health insurance for less than 100 bucks a month. [applause] >> and by the way, it's not just in massachusetts. look at kentucky. the governor, who is a democrat, is like a man possessed with helping more people get coverage. he thinks it's the right thing to do. keep in mind, i did not win in kentucky. [laughter] >> but there are a lot of uninsured people in kentucky, and they are signing up. oregon has covered 10% of its uninsured citizens already because of the affordable care

act. 10% of the uninsured have already gotten coverage. [cheers and applause] >> arkansas, i didn't win that state either, covered almost 14% of its uninsured already. that's already happened. [applause] >> and you got some republican governors like governor kasich of ohio who put politics aside and expanding medicaid through this law to cover millions of people. unfortunately, there are others who are so locked into the politics of this thing that they won't lift a finger to help their own people and leaving millions of americans uninsured unnecessarily. that's a shame. because if they put as much energy into making this law work as they do in attacking the law,

americans would be better off. americans would be better off. [cheers and applause] >> so that's the affordable care act, better protections for americans with insurance. a new marketplace for americans without insurance. new tax credits. more choice. more competition. real health care security, not just for the uninsured or underinsured but for all of us because we pay more in premium and taxes when americans without good insurance visit the emergency room. [applause] >> and since we all benefit, there are parts of this law that also require everybody to contribute. require everybody to take some measure of responsibility.

so to help pay for the law, the wealthiest americans, families who make more than $250,000 a year have got to pay a little bit more. the most expensive employer health insurance, don't qualify for tax credits, some people aren't happy but it's the right thing to do. in massachusetts, most people who can afford health insurance have to take responsibility to buy health insurance or pay a penalty. employers with more than 50 employees have to provide health insurance to their workers or pay a penalty because they shouldn't dump off that cost to others. everyone has responsibilities. now, it is also true that some americans who have health insurance plans that they bought on their own through the old individual market are getting notice from their insurance companies suggesting that

somehow because the affordable care act, they may be using their existing health insurance plans. this is the latest flurry because there has been confusion and misinformation, i want to explain just what's going on. one of the things health reform was designed to do was to help not only the uninsured but also the underinsured. and there are a number of americans, fewer than 5% of americans who got cut-rate plans that don't offer real financial protection in the event of a serious illness or an accident. remember, before the affordable care act, these bad apple insurers had free rein to limit the care that you received or use minor pre-existing conditions to jack up your premiums or bill you into bankruptcy. so a lot of people thought they were buying coverage and turned out it wasn't so good. before the affordable care act, the worst of these plans routinely dropped thousands of

americans every single year. and on average, premiums for folks who stayed in their plans for more than a year shot up to 15% a year. this wasn't just bad for those folks who had these policies, it was bad for all of us, because, again, when tragedy strikes and folks can't pay their medical bills, everyone else picks up the tab. now, if you had one of these substandard plans before the affordable care act became law and you really liked that plan, you are able to keep it. that's what i said when i was running for office. that was part of the promise we made. but ever since the law was passed, if insurers decided to downgrade or cancel these substandard plans, what we said under the law is, you have to replace them with quality comprehensive coverage because that, too, was and central

preliminary cyst of the affordable care act from the very beginning. and today, that promise means that every plan includes maternity care, preventive care, and hospitalization and can't use pregnancy or a sports injury or the fact that you are a woman to charge you more. [cheers and applause] >> they can't do that anymore. if you couldn't afford coverage because your child had asthma, he's not covered. if you are one of the 45 million americans with a mental illness, you're not covered. if you are expecting a baby, you are covered. the system is more secure for you and more secure for everybody. so if you are getting one of the

these letters, just shop around in the new marketplace, that's what it's for. because of the tax credits we are offering and because of the -- tition -- pipeline because of the tax credits we are offering and the competition between insurers, most people are going to be able to get better comprehensive health care plan for the same price or even cheaper than projected. you are going to get a better deal. now there is a fact that americans with higher incomes will pay more and protections like the patients' bill of rights and that will actually save them from financial ruin if they get sick, but nobody is losing their right to health care coverage. and no insurance company will be able to deny you coverage or drop you as a customer.

those days are over. and that's the truth. and that is the truth. cheers and applause] >> for people without health insurance, they are finally going to be able to get it. for the vast majority of people who have health insurance that works, you can keep it. for the fewer than 5% of americans who buy insurance on your own, you will be getting a better deal. so anyone peddling the notion that insurers are cancelling peoples' plans without mentioning that almost the insurers are encouraging people to get better coverage with stronger benefits and stronger protections and others will get better plans through new carriers and make the plans cheaper, if you leave that stuff

out, you are being grossly misleading, to say the least. [applause] >> but frankly, look, you saw this in massachusetts. this is one of the challenges of health care reform. health care is complicated and very personal and it's easy to scare folks. and it's no surprise that some of the same folks trying to scare people now are the same folks who have been trying to scare folks about the affordable care act from the beginning. and frankly, i don't understand it. providing prosecute people with health care, that should be a no-brainer. giving people a chance to get health care should be a no-brainer. [applause]

>> and i have said before, folks actually had good ideas, better ideas, then what is happening in massachusetts or what we've proposed for providing people with health insurance, i would be happy to listen, but that's not what's happening. and anyone defending the remnants of the old broken system as if it was working for people, anybody who thinks we shouldn't finish the job of making the health care system work for everybody, especially when these folks offer no plan for the uninsured or underinsured or folks who lose their insurance each year, those folks should have to explain themselves. [applause] >> because i don't think we

should go back to discriminating against kids with pre-existing conditions. i don't think we should go back to dropping coverage for people when they get sick or because they make a mistake on their application. [applause] >> i don't think we should go ck to the detail crulets and indig nights and constant insecurity of a broken health care system and i'm confident most americans agree with me. [applause] > so, yes, this is hard. the health care system is a big system and it's complicated. and if it was hard doing it just in one state, it's harder to do

it in all 50 states, especially when the governors of a bunch of states and half of the congress aren't trying to help. yeah. it's hard, but it's worth it. it is the right thing to do. and we are going to keep moving forward. we are going to keep working to improve the law just like you did here in massachusetts. cheers and applause] >> we are just going to keep working on it. keep grinding it out like you did in massachusetts and by the way as we did when the prescription drug for seniors was passed by a republican president a year ago. that health care law had some early challenges as well and even problems with the web site.

[laughter] >> and democrats weren't happy with a lot of the aspects of the law because, in part, it added hundreds of billions to the deficit and was president paid for unlike the affordable care act, which will actually help lower the deficit. [cheers and applause] >> but you know what? once it was the law everybody pitched in to try to make it work. democrats weren't about to punish millions of seniors to make a point or settle a score. democrats worked with republicans to make it work. and i'm proud of democrats having done that. it was the right thing to do. , about 90% of seniors like what they have. they've gotten a better deal. both parties working together to get the job done. that's what we need in

washington right now. that's what we need in washington right now. [cheers and applause] >> you know, republicans in congress were as eager to help americans get covered, some republican governors have shown themselves to be, -- i'm not asking them to agree on everything, but if they worked with us like mitt romney did working with democrats in massachusetts or like ted kennedy often did with republicans did in congress including on the prescription drug bill, we would be a lot further along. [applause] >> the point is, we may have political disagreements. we do. deep ones. and some cases we have fundamentally different visions about where we should take the country. but the people who elect us to

serve, they shouldn't pay the price for those disagreements. most americans don't see things through a political or ideological lens, this debate hasn't been about right or left, but about the helplessness that a parent feels when she can't cover a sick child or a small business faces between keeping his employees or keeping his doors open. i want to close with an example. a person named alan schaffer from pratsburg, new york and he has a story to talk about giving i up his own health care to save the woman he lives. he wrote to me last week. four years ago his wife, january, who happens to be a nurse, was struck with cancer. and she had to stop working. and then halfway through her chemo, her employer dropped

coverage for both of them. and alan is self-employed. he has an antique business. so he had to make sure his wife had coverage in the middle of the cancer treatment, so he went without insurance. the great news is today, janice cancer-free and on medicare but alan has been uninsured ever since until last week. cheers and applause] >> when he sat down at a computer and i'm sure after multiple tries -- [laughter] >> signed up for a new plan under the affordable care act, coverage that can never be taken way if he gets sick.

[applause] >> so i want to read you what he said in this letter. he said, i got to tell you, i never been so happy to pay a bill in my entire life. when you don't have insurance at my age, it can really feel like a time bomb waiting to go off. the sense of relief from knowing i can live out my days longer and healthier, that is a tremendous weight off my shoulders. so, two days later, alan goes over to his buddy bill's house and sits bill and his wife down at the computer, and after several tries -- [laughter] >> alan helped lift that weight from their shoulders by helping them to sign up also and compared to their current plan, it costs half as much and covers

more. see, that's why we committed ourselves to this cause. for alan and january, for bill, anyone who nie, for wrote letters and shared stories and knocked on doors, because they believed what can happen here in massachusetts can happen all across the country. and for them and for you, we are going to see this through. cheers and applause] >> we are going to see this through! we are going to see this through! cheers and applause]

>> this hall is home to some of the earliest debates over the nature of our government, the appropriate size, the appropriate role of our government and those debates continue today and that's healthy. they are debates about the role of the individual and society and our rugged individualism and self-reliance, our devotion to the kind of freedoms whose first shot rang out not far from here, but they are also debates tempered by a recognition that we are all in this together and that when hardships strike, and it could strike any of us at any moment, we're there for one another. and that as a country, we can accomplish great things that we can't accomplish alone. cheers and applause]

>> we believe that. we believe that! and those sentments are expressed in a painting right here in this very hall, liberty , one ion, now and forever and inaccept rabble. that's the value statement we are talking about. that's what health care reform is all about. that's what america is about. we are in this together and we are going to see it through. thank you. god bless! cheers and applause] ♪

>> health and human services secretary kathleen sebelius was on capitol hill today talking about the problems with the healthcare.gov website. over the course of her 3 1/2-hour testimony, she answered questions. here's the question between secretary sebelius and representative marsha blackburn. >> i want to go to the cost of the website and talk about the website. this is what is happening right now with this website. we had somebody in the back trying to sign on. it is down. it is not working. last week i asked for the cost from each of the contractors that were with us last week. o can you give us a ballpark

of what you have spent on this website that does not work, that individuals cannot get to? what is your cost estimate? >> so far, congresswoman, we have spent about $118 million on the website itself. and about $56 million has been expended on other i.t. to support the web. >> ok. would you submit a detailed accounting of exactly what has been spent and when do you expect constituents from stop getting these kind of error messages? >> again, i talked to the president of verizon over the weekend on two occasions. verizon host the cloud which is not part of the website. it is a host for a number of websites. the verizon system was taken down saturday night into sunday. it was down almost all day sunday. they had an additional problem that they notified us about yesterday and it continues on. so i'd be happy to talk to the president of verizon. >> let me come back to that. i want to get to this issue of

exactly who was in charge of this. project. because you're now blaming it on the contractors saying it's verizon's fault. let me ask you this. did you ever look at outsourcing the role of the system integrator and, obviously, you did not, from the contractors that we had last week. we all -- they had several different people that they thought were in charge. so who is responsible for overseeing this project, is it you or your designee? >> let me be clear, i am not pointing fingers at verizon. i am trying to explain the way the site operates. we own the site. the site has had serious problems. >> who is in charge, madam secretary? >> the person now in charge as integrator is qssi. >> who was in charge as it was being developed?

>> at that team who is -- >> michelle snyder. >> michelle snyder is the one responsible for this debacle. >> excuse me, congresswoman. michelle snyder is not responsible. for the debacle. hold me responsible. >> thank you. i yield back. >> house republican sent sebelius back to capitol hill during the first week of december. you can see all of her testimony on c-span tonight at 8:00 eastern. and over on our companion network, c-span2 aft 8:00, we'll hear from senate negotiators holding their first official meeting to try to hammer out a budget agreement. among the conversation of the 29 members of the conference committee focused on replacing the sequester budget cuts. you can see all of the meeting tonight at 8:00 eastern on c-span2. and today was also the first meeting for house and senate negotiators compromising on the

farm bill. a story in "congressional quarterly" say the senate's proposal for new restrictions on crop insurance and a house amendment that would have california from regulating out-of-state farm practices would be during the regulations. here's what happened at some of today's meeting. >> to all my colleagues, i know that we face some daunting challenges, that we are working in a very complicated environment to craft a very technical bill that touches so many important parts of our society, of our economy and of this country as a whole, and i know that there are many different perspectives on social policy, on agricultural production policy, but i'm confident that the spirit that's been demonstrated in achieving this point, passage of both the bills out of the

house and senate committees and across the floor, that we can accomplish that. and i would be most remiss if i didn't note the special appreciation i have for my ranking member and my friend, i believe, collin peterson, as well as all of my friends at this table, and most assuredly those on the other side of the table. i take this responsibility that we have together to accomplish this very important goal very seriously. i live in the part of the country where between mother nature and federal policy, on two -- almost three occasions in this last century, my folks saw their way of life nearly completely destroyed. i know that we cannot persuade mother nature, necessarily, on any given day to do things differently, but we can provide

the tools that enable our producers back home to withstand both the forces of nature that perhaps they have no control over on any given day as well as the markets and the advance of technology and international trade and all of those things that together affect us. and if the droughts in the midwest last year wasn't a clear enough reminder about the tools that are necessary when it comes to agriculture production, then most assuredly the blizzard of not many weeks go that wreaked such havoc across the dookts stand as a solemn -- dakotas stand as a solemn reminder. and also, not just on the side of the chart where we help make sure there's enough food and fiber, but on the side that reflects the struggles that many of our fellow citizens have meeting their needs every day as consumers.

the nutrition title is a very important part of the national safety net and how we address all of those components most assuredly will affect the lives of literally millions and millions of people across the country. so i would say this to my friends all around this table, it took us years to get here but we are here. it may take days and weeks perhaps to finish crafting what we'll call the 2013 farm bill in popular discussions at the coffee shops, but we can do it. we have to do it. we have a responsibility to do it. with that, let me simply say to my colleagues, let's not take it years to get it done. i now recognize the

distinguished gentlewoman from michigan, the honorable chairman for her comments, senator stabenow. >> thank you, mr. chairman. in a congress that's often too divided, it's refreshing that we can come together in agriculture, work across the aisle and accomplish real reforms. we have an incredible opportunity with this conference committee to finally get this five-year farm bill done, and i agree with the chairman, working together we will get it done and we'll be able to demonstrate to colleagues in both chambers that we can really govern together which i think is so important. in june, the senate passed a farm bill with an overwhelmingly bipartisan majority of 66 votes. and i want to thank my ranking member, distinguished senator from mississippi, senator cochran, for his leadership and his friendship. our bill represents the biggest reforms to agriculture policy in decades.

along with the house, it ends direct payments. we tighten payment limits, modernize dairy poll circumstances stop people who aren't actively engaged in farming from getting taxpayer subsidies. and the senate agrees with the house that our focus should be on reforming and strengthening crop insurance. we've heard from the beginning that risk management was the key priority for our farmers and our ranchers all across the country. and our bill reflects that by expanding crop insurance to cover more farmers and more kinds of crops. we also agree with the house that it's important to have an effective permanent livestock disaster assistance program that the chairman referred to. between the droughts of last year and the early snowstorms in the dakotas, we have seen the importance of having the disaster assistance in place. as the senate has made these reforms, one of our top priority has been to reduce market distortions.

designing agricultural policies that are risk based, market based will be a critical goal in our final negotiations. we also worked hard to make sure the senate bill would not be trade distorting while promoting u.s. agricultural exports that our producers all rely on. as we make this shift to risk management policies, it's very important that farmers and ranchers continue to do the things that make them the best stewards of our land and our water resources, by reconnecting conservation compliance to our now strengthened crop insurance program, we protect the future of agriculture for our children and grandchildren. we must also save fragile grass lands from destruction from the sod saver program that protects these landscapes and habitats while keeping management decisions with our farmers and our ranchers. the good news in the conservation title is that both the senate and house have

similar reforms that will strengthen our partnerships with farmers, to protect our natural resources for future generations. i'm pleased to see that both the senate and the house have a strong specialty crop and horticulture title. or beganic and special food production because we know that 47% of the crop value comes from specialty crops alone. the senate bill helps create new jobs through a robust energy title. this title helps our country be more energy independent, saves farmers money and helps consumers at the pump. this is a win-win-win for rural communities and america's future. for our farmers, crop insurance is a lifeline when disaster strikes. for american families, snap provides a lifeline when they face family economic disasters. we worked hard in the senate, mr. chairman, as you know, to make real reforms to save money

in food assistance. we cracked down on fraud and misuse to make sure that every single dollar goes to families that need it. and that's the approach we will need to take to achieve bipartisan support to get a final farm bill. it's also critical to note that this friday, $11 billion in cuts to families will take effect across the country. for those getting food help, and that means every child, every senior citizen, every disabled veteran, every person who's lost their job will have a more difficult time putting food on their tables. also, that $11 billion, plus the $4 billion in cuts in the senate bill, mean that accepting this senate nutrition title would result in a total of $15 billion in cuts in nutrition. the good news is that c.b.o. projects in their baseline that over $14 million people will no

longer -- 14 million people will no longer need temporary food help because the economy is moving and they'll get back to work. while there are many areas in a are similar between our bills there are differences. one i'll mention. one area of great concern is the provision that would override states' constitutional authorities on a wide range of issues including labeling of artificial sweeteners just to name a few. mr. chairman, i am very pleased to be here with you in this conference committee where i am confident we can work through these difficult issues and we can come together, make tough choices, set priorities and find common ground. there are 16 million men and women whose jobs rely on the strength of agriculture. they're counting on us to work together in good faith, get the farm bill done, and i'm confident we won't let them down. thank you, mr. chairman. >> thank you, madam chair

woman. the chair now turns to the gentleman from minnesota, the ranking member of the house ag committee, mr. peterson. >> thank you, mr. chairman. thank you for your leadership and hard work in getting us to this point. you've done an excellent job, and senator stabenow over in the senate, senator cochran for his good work and senator roberts in the previous congress. we've been -- i think like everybody i'm glad to be here. i'm going to try to exert some leadership and be brief and we'll see how that goes. but anyway, you know, we're hopefully at the beginning of the end of this process. and, you know, first started this almost four years ago when i was chairman and i probably got started earlier than i should have but this has been going on too long and i think i speak for all of us in saying it's long past time to finish this farm bill. the difference between the

house and senate farm bills, all titles and programs, commodities, nutrition, conservation, dairy, nutrition, even permanent law, and they all need to be addressed. resolving these issues poses a challenge but i know our respective agriculture committee members have the background and the experience to develop sound farm bill policies. and i believe that if the conference committee is left alone and allowed to do our work, we'll be able to find some middle ground and finish the farm bill. i think we got a good group of conferees, and i know that everybody's committed to finishing the job, so, you know, we've been working on this bill for so long that i think we're actually at the point where most of the staff work has been done. and really it's time for the members now to start making the compromises necessary to put this bill together so it can be defended and clearly explained

to our colleagues and the general public. it's time to put together a bill that can pass in had both the house and the senate and be signed by the president. so with that i'm not going to go into all of the issues. i think they've been covered to some extent already. anybody that's paying attention has heard more out of me in the last four years than they want to hear anyway so i don't want to say it again. so i just hope we can find a way to move forward, get these things worked out and get this resolved as soon as possible. so with that i yield back. >> the gentleman yields back. the chair now recognizes the ranking member of the senate agriculture committee, the gentleman from mississippi, senator cochran. >> mr. chairman, i'm pleased to join our chairwoman and our members of the senate delegation in thanking you for the efforts you are making to

impress us with the decor and the space that we have here in the house of representatives. it brings back a lot of good memories for me and i know the others who may have served here in the house of representatives. but we know we have a serious responsibility today and that is to begin an effort to with some dispatch, too, to get a fair and workable farm bill reported back to our two bodies. we hope we can do that, recognizing the urgency in some of these areas where questions need to be answered in order for farmers to make decisions and others who are affected by this law. so you have our commitment to try to be a positive influence in this process. we thank you for your kurt cis. >> the gentleman yields back. the chair now recognizes the gentleman from iowa, mr. king. >> thank you, mr. chairman. i'm very happy to be here today as we formally kick off the conference committee process in

this 2013 farm bill. it's been a long and it's been a sometimes bumpy road to get to this place. i want to thank the chairs and the ranking members for their diligent work and determination to get us to this point today. chairman lucas and ranking member peterson have both been strong leaders throughout this process. i'm grateful to them and i'm grateful to the members of this committee, especially grateful to the staff for the staff which has done so much work behind the scenes. as we begin the conference process, i hope we can work together across the aisle to resolve the many issues critical to our farmers and ranchers around the country. it's time for congress to give our producers the predictability they deserve. we need to do that by passing a five-year farm bill as soon as possible. i'm proud to represent one of the most successful agriculture districts as we work towards that end. i entered in this process in 2012 with several priorities and many of them are in the underlying bill. i will be doing as much as i can to nurture this process forward for those and many

other reasons. i appreciate the work that's been done in these bills, especially to maintain the role of federal crop insurance, and as our producers' safety net. it's become to be more reliable to prodecember urs with ad hoc disasters when i first arrived here 11 years ago. increase the coverage and allowed our producers to share the risk. another issue that's critical to iowans and americans is conservation. and with direct payments eliminated, it's important we provide incentives for farmers to continue to be good stewards of the land. it's been a lot of my life's work. i'm pleased in putting together some strong title 2 programs. i'm anxious to see how this plays out in this conference. one i shally ue at the forefront -- issue at the forefront is the nutrition title. as part of the nutrition

subcommittee, i'll continue to work with my colleagues to reform the snap program, to cut back waste, fraud and abuse in the program, to assure those funds are available to those who are needy. the cost to snap has more than doubled from 2008 to 2012, as have the enrollees gone from 28 dch 2 million up to -- 28.2 million up to 47.8 million. i'm interested and encouraged by the news that i heard from the -- chair from the senate side on this information. but finally, i'd add that an amendment that i added to the farm bill will remain one of my top priorities moving forward. it was accepted by a voice vote n both the 2012 and the 2013 markup. this amendment is found in -- i n 113-12 of h.r. developed it on the premise of having recognized that the commerce clause in the constitution prohibits trade protectionism between the states. it became relevant, though,

after california passed the law in 2010 that mandates that beginning 2015 no eggs be brought into or sold into the state unless they're laid by hence, housed in facilities that effectively are double the from a cost to our producers. i will go deeper into this amendment as we discuss this. but the bottom line of it is no state should be allowed to regulate the production in other states, any state, including california's free to regulate, even overregulate their producers, but not to regulate the other 49 states. that's the topic that i'm confident that we will discuss. but, mr. chairman, i'm anxious to begin this process and i'm looking forward to working with my colleagues to finish our work on this bill. as i said, i realize i'm a little late in some of the states but not all the states and i yield back. the speaker pro tempore: the gentleman yields back. the chair must take note as he recognizes the next esteem senator that this is one of a couple senators over there i learned a great deal about the conference committee work from

in the 2002 farm bill conference, my first experience of seeing how it was done, the chair recognizes the gentleman from vermont, senator leahy. >> thank you, mr. chairman. as you were speaking earlier and senator stabenow was speaking how fortunate we are to have two of you as chairs and the two ranking members, senator cochran and congressman peterson, as senator stabenow mentioned, the work with senator cochran, he and i served together for decades. we both have been chairs or ranking member of the senate agriculture committee. we worked on seven farm bill conferences in 1981. i can show you the scars. having people with experience, like the two chairs here and the two ranking members here helps a lot. it's been 13 months since the last farm bill expired.

i have farmers and rural communities in vermont tell me every day how imperative it is we overcome our differences. it's not only a farm bill, it's a trade bill, it's a hunger bill, a conservation bill, deficit reduction bill, it's also a job creation bill. we passed a bipartisan bill twice in the senate. we had the republicans and democrats. we each had to give some but we did it. we assured a farm bill that supports nation farmers, rural communities, alleviates hunger, reforms commodity programs, ends trade destroying policy, creates jobs and saves taxpayers $24 billion. not bad. on dairy, farmers across the country support a margin insurance program. one that has to work in tandem with the market stabilization program. i hear this from the kitchen ables to the high school

gymnasiums in the farm areas, agriculture areas in my state. we've done that in the senate bill. farmers remember the dairy crisis of 2009. they know the insurance program alone is not enough. if we don't have stabilization, we're going to cost taxpayers hundreds of millions of additional dollars, virtually guarantee another dairy crisis, will put people out of business. so there's a number of other things, which i'll put in the record. we have to have strong nutrition programs. i worked with -- i think people like bob dole and george mcgovern in the past coming together to do that. as chairman of the senate judiciary committee, i believe nothing in this bill should limit the authority of the secretary to protect our farmers from deceptive business practices. and we just need the certainty we have to have in this. we can do it. you got the leaders, you got the men and women at this table in both parties who can do it if we really want to. i hope we will.

thank you, mr. chairman. and thank you for your kind words. >> the gentleman yields back. the chair recognizes the gentleman from north carolina, mr. mcintyre. >> thank you, mr. chairman. we all know the road to this farm bill conference is long and we know we're glad this day is here and i do want to thank the leadership from both the house and the senate for your hard work and your consistency in bringing us to this point. the farm bill is critical to my home state of north carolina as agribusiness continues to be the number one business. employing approximately one out of every five north carolinians. for decades this committee has protected and strengthened our farmers, strengthened rural economic development, provide the nutritional support that we need for the most vulnerable in our society. i do look forward to us moving this to a conclusion. having a strong reform-minded, fiscally responsible, bipartisan bill we can pass and do it as soon as possible. we're all tired of waiting. we've witnessed the harsh

effects of the unexpected winter storm that devastated the live stock industry in the midwest. this type of concern for our live stock industry those the importance of passing a bill and do it soon to give certainty and security to our producers because we know disasters can happen anytime, anywhere. rural development has been something we've seen make a difference. 85 of the 100 counties in north carolina fall under rural economic development opportunities for these programs. and that means not only helping our farmers, but it means economic development and jobs in rural area. it means the water and waste water projects that all of our county commissioners comes to talk about. it means broadband. it means the fire, law enforcement and emergency services that our communities need so desperately and it he means support for small business. so for all those who are listening and watching, this is about economic opportunity here in the united states and making sure that our rural areas are not forgotten. i hope we'll also be able to take care of the situation with

the jipsa rule. i know that's something we want to take consistent. and make sure that we find the legislative solution that -- in a way that satisfies our w.t.o. trade obligations. we want to make sure we prevent trade retaliation against u.s. exports that could quas irrefacial economic harm and find a legislative fix that provides sufficient label information to consumers while fulfilling our commitments to our trading partners. we also know that increasingly states across the country have made it harder for livestock producers to be able to sell their proscombructsdukts all across the u.s. and the -- products all across the u.s. and the world. by limiting the types of restrictions they can place, the farm bill can ensure that farmers can sell their products across the u.s., stay in business and employ folks in our rural communities. i look forward to working with all of you, my colleagues. i know this is time to show the nation we do know how to work together. we can make a difference. and by god's grace and your

commitment to do so, we will and we'll get it done in a timely fashion. thank you, mr. chairman. >> the gentleman yields back. the chair now has a particularly distinct honor and privilege of not only recognizing his neighbor, his original mentor and the fellow that will always be a chairman to him, the senator from kansas, mr. roberts. >> well, thank you, mr. chairman. i appreciate that very much. chairman lucas and chair stabenow, ranking member cochran, ranking member peterson, all my other colleagues, it is indeed a privilege to be here with you today to begin this farm bill conference committee. excuse me. we've all worked very hard to get to this point, and that's probably the understatement of my statement. and have already made significant strides, i think, in it achieving necessary reforms. for example, both bills do

eliminate the direct payments and our commodity and disaster programs. we have heard consistently from producers in all regions, from yarn arbor, michigan, to wichita, kansas, that crop insurance is their number one priority. our producers are willing to put their own skin in the game to protect themselves against disaster. the full house of representatives and the senate have made the commitment to the supplemental coverage option and other provisions that crop insurance is the most responsible the farm safety net for farmers and for the taxpayer. however, i do have concerns with several senate provisions that unnecessarily duplicate regulation on farmers' practices and restrict our producers' coverage. for ranchers and livestock producers, i'm glad they expand the disaster program from the 008 farm bill, including the livestock program.

i appreciate the house addressing several burdensome regulations that a lot of us have worked on in the senate, including pesticides, farm fuel tank storage, the prairie chicken, jipsa and mandatory control of origin labeling. regarding nutrition and the snap program, the house passed similar reforms to legislation i've offered to titlen eligibility standards, close state loopholes and end wasteful and duplicative programs without harming benefits to those who need the most assistance. finally, i do have some significant concerns regarding two proposed commodity titles. the 2010 senate-passed farm bill contained real reform. we ended federal subsidies that encouraged farmers to plant for the government. i.e. target price programs. this year's version created a new adverse market payment

program tied to decoupled historic base acres. the p.l.c. program went further backwards, in my view, and recoupled production to planted acres and sets high fixed target prices. modern farm bill should not create, planting, marketing international trade distortions. let me be clear, target prices should be decoupled and the government should not set prices at a level that practically guarantee profit instead of acting as a risk management tool, not to mention inviting serious problems with a w.t.o. complaint. let me assure you that w.t.o.'s stove is hot. in closing, we all around this -- we are all around this table for a reason. i am here and committed to provide certainty to our producers. and a forward-thinking farm bill that is responsible to kansans, farmers, ranchers, their lenders and consumers as

well as taxpayers all across the country. thank you so much to the leadership of both committees, the producers that have participated in all of our hearings and meetings and all the members here for working to advance agriculture. i'm reminded of the remarks by the distinguished chairman emeritus of the sometimes powerful house ag committee, garza who said we strive to get the best possible bill and in the end result we get the best bill possible. the distinguished chairman of the house committee said we have to do it. it is our responsibility to do it. it is my view and also the view of our ranking member in the house, collin peterson. we're going to lose credibility if it we don't get this bill done. we have to get this bill done. thank you very much. [captioning performed by national captioning institute] [captions copyright national cable satellite corp. 2013] >> house minority leader nancy pelosi said she thinks the

house budget committee can come to an agreement by thanksgiving. here's a look at her comments. today, happily, after finally the budget committee, the budget conference committee will meet after 220 days of obstruction and delay and 16 days of a government shutdown. hallelujah. finally house and senate democrats and republicans are going to the table. it's long been clear that the republicans' reckless and irresponsible agenda is a luxury the american people can no longer afford. the shutdown cost, as we referenced before, according to standard & poor's, $24 billion to our economy, according to the nonpartisan c.b.o., next year's across-the-board sequester cuts can cost -- result in a loss of 800,000 jobs. the ryan republican budget proposal cuts medicare benefits

for -- giving another tax break to millionaires. these manufactured crisis and backward priorities weaken our economy, cost hundreds of thousands of jobs and put a greater burden on america's middle class. it all comes down to the middle class. it's time to invest and not undermine our future. the american people expect both parties, democrats and republicans, to work toward reasonable solutions and address america's top priorities in a serve our country's best interest. we, democrats, are committed to reaching across the aisle to find commonsense solutions, but the republicans must be willing to compromise, too, and drop their refusal to consider cutting wasteful tax loopholes and not bringing revenue to the table. we, democrats, are committed to creating jobs, expanding the economy, reducing the deficit while we end the sequester.

we're committed to replacing the most damaging of the automatic cuts by cutting spending on wasteful special interest subsidies, closing tax loopholes so we ensure corporations and the wealthy are paying their fair share. i believe we should be able to reach a budget agreement by thanksgiving. i think this is really important for our economy. i hope today's open hearing is the first of many of the hearings of the budget debate. that transparency is essential to a fair agreement. >> and you can see the house and senate budget noshtnoshtors holding their first official meeting over -- negotiators holding their first official meeting over on c-span2 at 7:00 k8 p.m. kathleen sebelius testified on capitol hill today and apologized with the problems with the healthcare.gov website. you can see all of her 3 1/2 hours of testimony here on

c-span tonight at 8:00 eastern. right now we're going to watch part of what she said and we'll take your phone calls about it at 7:45 eastern. >> thank you, chairman upton, ranking member waxman, members of the committee, unless my position of -- i left my position of governor of kansas 4 1/2 years ago to continue work i've been doing for most of my over 35 years of public service, to expand the opportunities for all americans, regardless of geography or gender or income, to have affordable health coverage. during my years as state legislators, as head of the national association of insurance commissioners and as a two-term governor and now as h.h.s. secretary, i have worked on that effort that i care deeply about. there are still millions of americans who are uninsured as well as underinsured. people who have some coverage at some price for some illness but have no real protection

from financial ruin and no real confidence they'll be able to take care of themselves and their family if they have an accident or an illness. and for them a new day has finally come. in these early weeks, access to health care.gov has been maze rabblely frustrating experience for way too many americans. including -- including many who have waiting sometimes their entire life for the security of health insurance. i am as frustrated and angry as nyone. with the flawed launch of healthcare.gov. so let me say directly to these americans, you deserve better. i apologize. i am accountable to you for fixing these problems. i am committed to earning your confidence back by fixing the site. we are working day and night and we will continue until it is fixed. we have recently added new management talent, additional technical expertise and a new

general contractor to manage fixes across the system in two broad categories. performance, which deals with speed and reliability, and function, which deals with bugs and problems in the system. our extensive assessment has determined that healthcare.gov is fixable, and i just want to outline some of the couple of improvements we've made to date. we have more users successfully creating accounts. we can process 17,000 account registrations per hour. tore nearly five per second. instead of some of the users seeing a blank screen at the end of the application process, they can see whether they were' eligible for financial assistance and make more informed decisions. because we've improved performance, customers can shop for plans quickly. filtering plans takes seconds, not minutes. users are getting fewer errors and timeout messages as they move through the application process. the system has been

strengthened. we've doubled the size of servers, software, that is better optimized through a physical database that replaces a virtual system. the chairman referred to outages this weekend and again yesterday. and i would suggest to the committee that if you read the statement from verizon, who host the cloud service, it is the verizon server that failed, not healthcare.gov and it failed not only h.h.s. but other customers. we have a lot of work to do. we have a plan in place to address key outstanding issues. it includes fixing bugs in software that prevented from working the way it supposed to and refreshing the user experience so folks can navigate the site without having time-out and slow response times. andby the end of november, we are committed that the vast majority of users will be able to navigate without the problems that too many have been experiencing. but consumers are using the site every day and continue to

do so. and problems are being solved. but we know that we do not have a fully functioning system that consumers need and deserve. we are still at the beginning of a six-month open enrollment which extends through the end of march, and there's plenty of time to sign up. and just to put it in perspective, the average open enrollment for an insurance plan is two to four weeks. the new marketplace has a 26-week open enrollment and those who enroll by december 15 will be able to access their benefits on day one. even with the unacceptable problems with healthcare.gov, which we're committed to fixing, the affordable care act by any fair measure is working for millions of americans. they are benefiting from new health security, young adults, americans living with pre-existing health conditions, seniors on medicare. 85% of americans who already have health coverage are protected with new rights and benefits. the 15% of our neighbors and friends who are uninsured have

affordable new options in a competitive market. cost growth for health care is lower than it has been in years. millions of americans are clearly eager to learn about their options and to finally achieve health security and -- made possible by the affordable care act. and my commitment is to deliver on that promise. thank you, mr. chairman. > thank you very much. the mic got pulled a little bit rom you. let me start this clock. i appreciate you being here this morning. we have worked with our leadership to see that we do not have votes on the house floor this morning, so we will not be interrupted. i appreciate your time, for sure. in an effort to allow every member to ask a question, we will be reducing the time for questions to be just four minutes so hopefully we can get

through all of the members that are here. i will be pretty fast with the gavel. let me just say so we have plenty of questions. let's try to get through them. i think everyone in america remembers the president's words. if you like your health care plan, you can keep it. period. under the affordable care act, insurance policies that were in effect on march 23, 2010, when the law was enacted, would be grandfathered. then, a few months later, despite the president's word, h.h.s. helped promulgate a new reg that in your own review showed that it could effectively deny 50%, maybe even higher, of those holding individual policies the right to renew their own insurance plan. i would guess that there are a lot of us on this panel today who are hearing from angry and confused constituents, who are

onto eing forced to begun an inept website whether they like it or not to shop for a new replacement policy. they are finding premiums, often more than 100% what they are paying before. some even as high as 400% but i -- as i have heard from and rising deductibles as well. so, when was the president specifically informed of the regulation change, and if so, was it pointed out that this totally undermines his biggest selling point? i would note that on the screen, in a statement that he made more than three years after the regulation change was promulgated, the president said again, the first thing you need to know is this, if you already have health care, you don't have to do anything. so he's been on the same page from the very start. yet, the regulations changed months after the bill was enacted that are now causing perhaps millions of americans

be denied the ability to renew their individual coverage. why was that change made? and did the president know it? >> mr. chairman, there was no change. the regulation involving grandfathered plans, which applied to both the employer market and the individual market, indicated that if a plan that was in effect in march in 2010, stayed in effect, after unduly burdening the consumer, that plan would stay in effect and never have to comply with any of the regulations of the affordable care act. that is what the grandfather clause said. the individual market, which affects about 12 million americans, about 5% of the market, people move in and out, they often have coverage for less than a year, a third of them have coverage for about six months. if a plan was in place in march of 2010 and did not impose

additional burdens on the consumer, it is grandfathered in. >> why not let the consumer decide whether they want to renew it or not? why were regulations promulgated in the summer of 2010 that undermined the ability for folks to re-sign up, which was a reason -- >> there were no regulations changed. we outlined the grandfather policy so people could keep their plans. we then began to implement other features of the affordable care act. so if someone is buying a brand-new policy in the individual market today or last week, they will have consumer protections for the first time. many people in the individual market are medically underwritten. that will be illegal. many women are charged 50% more than men. that will be illegal. you cannot, again, eliminate someone because of a pre-existing health condition. you can't dump someone out or lock someone out. again, if a plan is in place and was in place at the time that the president signed the bill and

the consumer wants to keep the plan, those individuals are grandfathered in and that is happening across the country in the individual market. >> we are learning that folks who did have a plan and liked it in fact are being told it's canceled in the last -- my time has expired. let me yield to the ranking member, mr. waxman, for four minutes. >> thank you. i have to smile at your line of questioning. everybody expected this hearing was about the website. that is all we have been hearing about is the website. that is not the only complaint we have been hearing about since the affordable care act was adopted. we were told by our republican friends that millions of jobs would be lost. in fact, there has been a gain of seven million jobs. they said the cost for health care would skyrocket and in fact the opposite is true. they said there would be a massive shift to part-time jobs and the evidence doesn't support that. they said tens of millions would lose their insurance, but in fact, everybody in this

country is going to have access to health insurance because they won't be discriminated against. they said it would explode the deficit. and yet all the reputable organizations, like the congressional budget office, have told us that it's going to save us $100 billion over 10 years. so we've had a litany of objections from the republicans about the affordable care act, which has driven them to such a frenzy they even closed the government. now we have you before the committee and you are being asked -- i suppose later -- about the website. but let me pursue this question about individuals who've gotten notices that they're going to have their individual insurance policies canceled. they will be able to get another plan, won't they? >> it's the law that they get a plan. continuous coverage is part of the law. twheant the case in the past. >> so the affordable care act

-- we're going toned the worst abuses of insurance companies. we're going to create consumer protections in the marketplace that they'll be able to buy a policy even if they have been sick in the past. that women will not be charged more than men. that we're not going to let insurance companies deny coverage because of pre-existing conditions. we're not going to let them put these lifetime caps, and they will be in a central benefits package so you won't be buying some things, you will have the minimum that everybody should have. prescription drugs, mental health coverage, doctors, and hospitals. are these important consumer protections? >> well, i would say, mr. waxman, they are very important. as a former insurance commissioner, i can tell you that the individual market in kansas and anywhere in the country has never had consumer protections. people are on their own. they can be locked out, priced out, dumped out, and that happened each and every day so this will finally provide the

kind of protections that we all enjoy in our health care plans as part of a group, as part of a plan that has prenegotiated benefits. we enjoy that kind of health security. individuals in the buying insurance on their own, families, entrepreneurs, mom and pop shops never had that kind of health security. >> now they will have this health security. most of the plans, as i understand it, they are no longer going to be able to keep don't meet all the standards of the law. >> again, i think you may have heard pat garr rimbings ty from florida, he talks about the fact that the florida plans want to keep their customers. they have new plans to offer. they feel that a lot of people -- and these are mr. garrity's words -- will have a much better plan at a similar or lower cost, 50% of these 11

million to 12 million people qualify for a subsidy. qualify for financial help purchasing insurance for the first time ever. >> the bottom line is that people with good coverage like medicare, medicaid, employer coverage can keep that. people with grandfathered plans on the individual market will e able to keep it. but if an insurance company sold you a new, modified health insurance policy after the date of the enactment that does not meet the law's standards, those people will be able to buy a real, solid health insurance plan that won't discriminate against them or anybody else. i think that's a good result. i'm pleased with it. i think most people will be as well. >> the gentleman's time has expired. the chair would recognize the vice chair of the committee, mrs. blackburn. >> thank you, mr. chairman. madam secretary, before, during and after the law was passed, the president kept saying, if you like your health care plan you can keep it. so is he keeping his promise?

>> yes, he is. >> what do you say to the 300,000 people in florida, you just mentioned, or to the 28,000 in tennessee who cannot get health insurance, their plans are terminated, is he keeping his promise to them? >> first of all, congresswoman, they can get health insurance. they must be offered new plans, new options either inside the marketplace or if they don't qualify for a subsidy -- financial subsidy they can shop or out of the marketplace, they absolutely will have new coverage. >> what do you say to nbc news millions will lose their coverage? >> in all deference to the press corps, many of whom are here today, i think that it is important to be accurate about what is going on and i would defer, again, to the president of the -- they will be offered new plans. >> madam secretary, let me tell you something -- >> will call to --

>> what do you say to mark and lucinda in my district who had a plan, they liked it, it was affordable, but it is being terminated and now they do not have health insurance? >> insurance companies cancel individual policies year in and year out. they are one-year contracts with individuals. they are not lifetime plans. they are not an employer plan. >> let me move on. it is what they wanted. i will remind you, some people like to drive a ford and not a ferrari. some people like to drink out of a red solo cup. not a crystal stem. you are taking away their choice. let's put a screenshot up. i want to go to the cost of the website and talk about the website. this is what is happening right now with this website. we've had somebody in the back trying to sign on. it is down. it is not working. last week i asked for the cost from each of the contractors that were with us last week. so can you give me a ballpark of what you have spent on this website that does not work, that individuals cannot get to? hat is your cost estimate?

>> so far, congresswoman, we have spent about $118 million on the website itself. and about $56 million has been expended on other i.t. to support the web. >> ok. would you submit a detailed accounting of exactly what has been spent? and when do you expect constituents to stop getting these kind of error messages? >> again, i talked to the president of verizon over the weekend on two occasions. verizon hosts the cloud which is not part of the website. it is a host for a number of websites. the verizon system was taken down saturday night into sunday. it was down almost all day sunday. they had an additional problem that they notified us about yesterday. and it continues on. i would be happy to talk to the

president of verizon. and get him to give you information about that. >> let me come back to that. i want to get to this issue of exactly who was in charge of this. project. because you're now blaming it on the contractors and saying it's verizon's fault. so let me ask you this -- did you ever look at outsourcing the role of the system integrator and, obviously, you did not, from the contractors that we had last week, you all -- they had several different people -- whether it was you or gary cohen or michelle snyder or henry chow that they were in charge, so who is responsible for overseeing this project? is it you or your designee? >> let me be clear, i am not pointing fingers at verizon. i am trying to explain the way the site operates. we own the site. the site has had serious problems. >> who is in charge, madam secretary? >> the person now in charge as an integrator is qssi, one of

our -- >> who was in charge as it was being built? >> in charge -- >> at that team, who is the individual? >> michelle snyder. >> michelle snyder is the one responsible for this debacle. >> well, excuse me, congresswoman, michelle snyder is not responsible for the debacle. hold me accountable for the deback al. >> i yield back. >> the chair recognizes mr. dingell from the great state of michigan. >> mr. chairman, thank you for your courtesy. i will ask you a couple of questions on behalf of congresswoman shashte. i ask permission that i revise and extend my remarks. >> without objection. >> mr. chairman, i'd like to begin by thanking you, welcoming the secretary into a room in which her distinguished father, former governor of ohio served so many years. i begin my questions by quoting from an expert for whom i have enormous respect.

he said, as follows -- as i mentioned earlier, the new benefits and its implementation are hard to perfect. rather than trying to scare seniors, i hope we can work through the implementation phase to find out what is wrong with the program and if we could make some changes to fix it. let us do it and let us do it in a bipartisan fashion. it is too big a program and is too important to too many people to do that. but having said that, it does not appear that it is working. let us admit it, you know, and not keep beating a dead horse, my beloved friend, mr. barton, who i think gave us the beginning of our efforts today. madam secretary, i have seen reports that consumers receiving plan cancellation notices from their insurance companies saying that plans are no longer available. does the a.c.a. require insurance companies to discontinue the plans that people had when the law was

passed, yes or no? >> not when the law has passed, if the insurance changed, that's the grandfather clause. >> if an insurance company is no longer offering a certain plan, it's because that insurance company made a decision to change their policies. and that caused them to take away the grandfathered status from their insurance purchasers, is that correct? >> that's correct. >> now, madam secretary, i want you to submit for the record a statement of what it is we can do about insurance companies that run around canceling the policies of their people. i don't have time to get the answer, but i want to get a clear statement from you as to what you can do. so take some skin off of folks that have it coming. now, madam secretary, it's my

understanding that these decisions of a business character are most common in the individual insurance market and that much turnover already exists and existed prior to the enactment of the legislation. >> that is correct. >> is that correct? >> yes, sir. >> is it correct that 35% to 67% of the enrollees in the individual markets leave their plan after one year for different reasons? >> a third are in about less than six months in the individual market. and over 50% are in for less than a year, yes, sir. >> now, in the cancellation letters, which move around from the insurance companies, some insurance companies are suggesting an alternative plan at a higher price. do they have a right to do that? >> they have a right to do that, sir. consumers have a right to shop anywhere to medicare plans and they have choices now that they've never had before and some financial assistance. >> and they have no right to

enforce that demand on consumers? >> absolutely not. no one is rolled over into a plan. in fact, individuals for the first time ever will have the ability to compare plans, to shop and to make a choice inside or outside the marketplace. >> look to me like the insurance companies are trying to inflict on their customers the view that this is their right and that this is the only option available to them, is that correct? > well, i >> i think insurance companies would like to keep their customers. having said that, for the first time customers have a lot of choices. >> but these companies have no right to enforce that. >> there is no rule that you have to stay with your company or you have to be rolled over. >> the gentleman's time has expired. >> when they come forward and tell that you you've got to buy a particular policy, is that right? >> absolutely. >> the chair would recognize the gentleman from texas. >> thank you. before i ask my questions, we

have a former member of the committee on the democrat side from the great state of kansas in the audience, mr. slattery. we are glad to have you. madame secretary, we are glad to have you too. >> thank you, sir. >>there was a famous movie called "the wizard of oz." in the movie there is a great line, dorothy turns to her little dog toto and says, "toto, we're not in kansas nymore." madame secretary, we are not in kansas anymore. some might say we are in the wizard of oz land given the parallel universes we appear to be habitating. mr. waxman and most of those on the democrat side think things are great. you apparently -- although you did apologize and you've said it's a debacle, you also seem to think the affordable care act is great. myself and others have a different view.

ultimately, the american people will decide. last week, when the contractors were here, i focused my attention on the apparent lack of privacy in the website. now, last week when the contractors were here, i focused my attention on the apparent lack of privacy in the website. if we'll put up the first slide that i had last week. if we can. this is what is public, madame secretary. it's basically a disclaimer that says any unauthorized attempt to upload information or change information on the website is prohibited. it really doesn't say anything about privacy. you do have to accept that in order to go forward with the application. the next slide shows what's not public. this is in the source code. we tried to determine this morning if it was still in the source code but pointed out the website is down.

this is much more frightening to me. it says you have no reasonable expectation of privacy regarding any communication or data transiting or information stored on the system at any time or any lawful government purpose, the government may monitor and intercept, search and seize any communication or data transiting or stored on the information system. any communication or data transiting or stored on this information system may be disclosed or used for any lawful government purpose. cheryl campbell of cgi federal said she was aware of it but it wasn't her responsibility to put that in the source code. were you a aware of it and was it your responsibility to put this in the source code? >> mr. barton, i did not put things in the source code. i can tell you that it's my understanding that that is boilerplate language that should not have been in this particular

contract because there are the highest security standards in place and people have every right to expect privacy. >> all right. now, the last time we could check, this was still there. you are given almost unlimited authority under the affordable care act to administer it. will you commit to the committee and to the american people that, one, you do want to protect their privacy and, two, you will take this out and fix it and make sure that it doesn't have bearing on people that try to apply through the website. >> yes, sir. we have had those discussions with cgi. it is under way. i do absolutely commit to protecting the privacy of the american public and we have asked them to remove that statement. it is there in error. it needs to be taken down and we should be held accountable for protecting privacy. >> thank you, madame secretary. i sincerely appreciate that and i'm sure the american people do

too. my last question or really a comment. i introduced hr-3348 saying let's make this system voluntary for the first year since we've having so many problems and let the american people decide. what at that means is if people choose not to participate, they will not be charged the penalty for nonparticipation. would you support such a reasonable approach to this while we work out the problems in the system? >> no, sir. >> okay. that's an honest answer. >> gentleman's time has expired. chair would recognize gentleman from new jersey, mr. pallone. >> thank you, mr. chairman. i know we're not in kansas but i do believe increasingly we're in oz because of what i see here. this "wizard of oz" comment by my colleague from texas i think is particularly aa pro given what we see on the other side. i don't know how you keep your

cool with the gop trying to scare people and bring up red herrings. i'm going to ask you a question about that. before that, i want to say this whole idea brought up today that somehow policies are being canceled and people don't have alternativ alternatives, it's just another red herring. what my colleagues on the other side forget is this is not socialized medicine. this is in fact private insurance in a competitive market. if i'm an insurance company and all of a sudden everyone else is selling a better policy with benefit benefits at a lower price, i can't continue to sell a lousy policy that doesn't provide benefits and cost more because i'll be out of the market so that's what's happening here. insurance companies are canceling lousy policies with high prices because they can't compete. that's what's going to happen when you have a private insurance market, which is what we have here. we don't have a government

controlled system. we have private markets. so i just want to make that point. i have to drill down on what mr. barton said here. before reform, the individual insurance market was dysfunctional, premiums would shoot up if people got sick, coverage could be canceled if they had a pre-existing condition, and they did not have secure quality coverage. now, i heard my republican colleagues say that patient health insurance will be at risk in this application process and this is flat out also. a giant leap forward for protecting health insurance by taking it out of the insurance application process and banning discrimination based on pre-existing conditions. mr. barton again is raising this red herring just like the cancellation of insurance by talking about privacy. madame secretary, prior to the aca when people applied for insurance coverage, did insurers make them provide an invasive medical history but because the

law bans discrimination based on pre-existing conditions, they do not need to provide this information in their applications. please comment on the privacy issue and why it's irrelevant. >> in the past, any individual american who was in an employer based coverage, in government coverage like we enjoy in medicare and medicaid and a variety of plans, that's about 95% of insured americans had no medical underwriting. had group protections. had consumer protections. the people who were outside that consumer protected space were individuals buying their own coverage in an individual market. medical underwriting demanding health records and often going through extensive doctor interviews and getting health records were a standard for that market. pricing could very widely dep d depending on gender and health

condition, people could be denied coverage and were frequently. that's the market that is currently being reformed with consumer protections. if a person had a policy in place in march of 2010 like that policy and the insurance company made no changes to disadvantage the consumer, those policies are in place. you keep the plan and that goes on. for people that had a medically underwritten policy, were paying more than their neighbor because they happened to be female, could not get their health condition for a fixed hip written into their insurance plan, they'll have a new day in a very competitive market. 25% of the insurers are brand new to the market offering competitive plans. >> mr. chairman, could i just ask that this document -- >> put it into the record without objection. >> chair would recognize mr. hall. >> thank you, mr. chairman.

madame secretary, i think congresswoman blackburn asked you about the federal government and how much they spent today and they're spending some money as we speak, aren't they? it's down right now, isn't it? you project ongoing problems? >> i'm sorry, sir. i'm having a hard time hearing. >> she asked you how much it had spent today and i'm asking what you expect to pay in addition to that on the repairs that the website is going to require and they require them as we speak here. so those are things you projected and you knew they would happen and they will happen. but you looked ahead and you have some estimate of what is going to happen. >> yes, sir. >> and going to cost. >> for our two major contractors who are ussi, subsidiary of united and for cgi, there are

obligated amounts. for cgi who is in charge of the entire application, there has been $197 million obligated and that is to last through march of 2014 and as i said before about $104 million has been expended in that obligated amount. >> i'm going to try to be here in 2014 to make sure your testimony is correct, okay. i'm just joking with you. >> okay. >> and were you born in kansas? >> i was not. i was born in cincinnati, ohio. i married a kansan and went to kansas. >> i was in the third grade there. i thought i saw you on a tricycle one day. >> it was an illusion. >> let me ask you a question, have you ever rejected a

financial bail from one of the contractors? have you ever? >> have i ever -- >> rejected a financial bail from one of them? >> sir, again, our -- >> i guess you can say yes or no. >> our accounting office does a routine audit and review of every bill before they do it. i do not personally. i want to be very accurate that i don't personally pay contracts, negotiate contracts, by law and by precedent that's really illegal for someone who isn't a warranted contract officer to engage in the debate or discussion around federal contracts. >> how much has the administration spent on the exchanges in total? not just healthcare.gov but all of the exchanges? >> sir -- >> how difficult is that figure to give me or if you can't give it to me, could you send it to me? >> i would like to get it to you in writing very quickly. >> madame secretary -- i don't know how much time i have left but i would like to talk about a

couple businesses in my district who are struggling with how to move forward. one is a manufacturing and one is pet boarding and training business and one has 85 employees and others have 46. this is another example of the government picking winners and losers. we're the losers. there is no way i can be competitive if i have to raise prices to cover 170,000. do not pay penalty. raise prices and go out of business. layoff 35 employees and move more production from this country and here's a quote from the other. since they are high labor low margin business cannot afford to pay insurance for employees we're forced to close our business through bankruptcy because there are heavy financial obligations that continue whether we operate or not or five enough employees to

get under 50 employees. even if we close the location, we cannot escape many expenses such as rental agreements. what am i supposed to tell these people? >> well, sir, i think that in the employer market, about 95% of all american american businesses are exempt from any kind of requirement to cover employer/employee insurance, and they are outside the law. they continue to be outside the law, but they will have new options for those who want to cover their employees and some new tax credit possibilities. for large employers, about 96% of them already cover their employees, and as you know, the penalty that your constituents refer to is not a penalty that is imposed in 2014. it is being discussed with businesses about what kind of information will be exchanged -- >> he's going to use the gavel on me if you don't hush. >> gentleman's time is expired.

>> i yield back my time. >> gentleman's time is expired. gentle lady from california? >> thank you, mr. chairman. welcome, madame secretary. you're a distinguished woman. you have distinguished yourself and your state, the offices that you've held, and now working for the american people, and i salute you for it. i want to really congratulate my republican pals for being absolutely, 1,000% consistent. you love what's wrong with the website, and you detest what's working in the affordable care act. and i think that is on full display here. but let's get back to the website, because that's what the hearing is about. it's my understanding that november 31st is a hard date for

having everything up and running. do you have -- now hhs did testify in september that they were 100% confident that the site would be launched and fully functional on time on october 1st. do you have full confidence in this new date? >> -- it will take until november for an optimally functioning website. the only way i can restore confidence to get it right is to get it right. so i have confidence, but i know that it isn't fair to ask the american public to take our word for it. i've got to fix this problem, and we are under way doing just that. >> but are you confident that -- i think i said november 31st, which is -- >> i thought -- >> which does not exist, but november 30th.

you have confidence in november 30th? >> i do. >> is there any penalty to qssi or cgi for not delivering on what they promised? >> well, i think the, as you can see, we have a obligated funds for a contract. we certainly have not expended all those funds, and we expect not only the cms team, but our contractor partners, to fulfill their obligations. >> but if they fail to fulfill their obligations, i don't know what's in the contract, is there a penalty? >> there isn't a built-in penalty, but i can tell you that paying for work that isn't complete is not something that we will do. qssi, as you know, has taken on a new role as integrate tor of the hub that they built and have in operation, is working extremely well, not only for the

federal exchanges, but all the state-based markets are using the hub, and that's why we had confidence in their ability to actually take this next roll on and coordinate the activities moving forward, which have to be driven with a very clear set of outcomes, very accountable timelines and deadlines, and they will be helping to manage that process. >> on the issue of security, there was a security breach that arose recently that i read about, at any rate. and what i think is very important here, because the issue of privacy has been raised, and i think that's been answered, because very importantly there isn't any health information in these systems, but there is financial information. so my question to you is, has a security wall been built, and are you confident that it is there and that it will actually

secure the financial information that applicants have to disclose? >> yes, ma'am, i would tell you that there was not a breach. there was a blog by a sort of skilled hacker that if a certain series of incidents occurred, you could possibly get in and obtain somebody's personally identifiable -- >> isn't that telling? isn't that telling? >> and we immediately corrected that problem. it was a theoretical problem that was immediately fixed. i would tell you, we are storing the minimum amount of data, because we think that's very important. the hub is not a data collector. it is actually using data centers at the irs, homeland security, social security, to verify information, but it stores none of that data, so we don't want to be -- >> thank you. >> gentle lady's time is expired.

chair recognizes mr. shimkus. >> thank you, chairman. welcome, madame secretary. madame secretary, before i start my questions, the washington post gave the president and yourself four pinocchios on the debate of if you like this insurance you have, you can keep it. would you recommend the president that he stop using that term? wouldn't that be helpful in this debate? >> sir, he used the term at the time the bill was passed -- >> september 26th also. >> that's why we wrote -- >> the answer is, you don't believe "the washington post" -- we'll hand this down for you so you can see it. have you ever shopped -- i know you have, but this is for a -- at a grocery store with a coupon? ever used a coupon? >> yes. >> so the coupon gives you the terms and conditions of when you go to the checkout to get whatever's off the price of the goods. when you all added the "c" plans

now option, you, in essence, gave the searcher, in essence, a coupon based upon what they are seeing there. the desire was, let people know what the price is. however, as the news reported, and i followed up in last week's hearing, was that if you are under 50 years old, you get quoted the price of someone who's 27. if you're older than 50, could be 64, you get quoted the price of someone who's 50 years old. isn't that misleading? >> sir, the learn site of the website, which has been out -- >> that's truthful, then, if you quote a price -- >> it is clearly a hypothetical situation that allows people -- >> on the see plans now option, is that a hypothetical? that's not what it says on the site. it says this is the price when

you put in your age, and if your age is 49, it quotes you as if you're 27. >> sir, the only way someone can get an accurate information about their price is to get their -- >> let me ask you a question, when did you decide to use this below 50 at 27 and above 50 at 50 years old, when did you make that decision? >> that was decided by the team -- >> by who? who made -- the problem with this whole debate is y'all won't tell us who made the decisions. >> i can tell you, i did not design the site. >> well who? who made the decision on the 27-year-old quote for someone who's 50? >> i just said i'll get you that information. >> thank you. thank you. let me go to, because it's misleading, and the white house insists it didn't mislead the public, and let me finish on this debate. it's another transparency issue.

if someone, a constituent of mine or someone in this country, has strongly held pro-life views, can you commit to us to make sure that the federal exchanges that offer that is clearly identified and so people can understand if they are going to buy a policy that has abortion coverage or not? because right now, you cannot make that determination. >> sir, i don't know. i know exactly the issue you're talking about. i will check and make sure that that is clearly identifiable. >> here's our request. can you provide for the committee the list of insurers in the federal exchange who do not offer as part of their package abortion coverage? >> i think we can do that, sir. >> well, you should be able to do it. >> i just said.

>> no, you said, if we can do it. >> i think we can do that. >> i think or i know? >> sir, i can't tell you what i don't know firmly right now. i know that is the plan. i will get that information to you. >> gentleman's time is expired. chair recognizes mr. rangel from new york. >> thank you, mr. chairman, mad madame secretary, i appreciate your taking time to come here today to answer questions about the affordable care act. this reminds me a story of when i was a little boy, the story of chicken little, who ran around yelling, the sky is falling, the sky is falling. but unlike chicken little, my republican colleagues are actually rooting for the sky to fall. republicans are holding this hearing today under the auspices of an investigative hearing, as if they want to get to the bottom of what went wrong with the website in order to help fix it, but i don't think, madam secretary, there's one person in this room that's naive enough to think the republicans want to

see this law work. they voted over 40 times to repeal the law, they shutdown the government and threatened a default in order to stop it. they are rooting for failure. madam secretary, can you tell us what would be the impact on americans' health insurance if republicans had been successful in their efforts to defund or repeal the affordable care act? >> well, i think the estimates at the congressional budget office, it would have increased the deficit by $110 billion in the first decade and close to a trillion dollars in the second decade. we know we have 42 or 43 million americans without health care, some medicaid eligible and some over the medicaid eligibility. 30 governors so far, republicans and democrats, have declared their support with moving ahead with medicaid expansion, but absent the affordable care act, those folks would be without any

kind of health security, and in the private market, what we know is it takes a real toll. but i'd say the biggest issue is not just the financial toll, not the community toll, not the country toll, which is significant. i have a good friend who runs the cancer center at the university of kansas. i was with him and cancer researchers recently, and he said if you get a cancer diagnosis, you are 60% more likely to live five years and beyond if you have insurance than if you don't. i think that's a pretty powerful statement for why we need affordable health care for all of our citizens. >> well, thank you. the republicans have not been able to defund or repeal it, but they have denied requested funding, they've raised arguments about death panels and socialized medicine, and they've worked to intimidate groups that could help the implementation effort. there's a spreading of misinformation about the cost of coverage. we hear some of that today, and to actively dissuade the

uninsured from seeking coverage. so madam secretary, how are these tactics impacted your ability to implement the affordable care act? >> well, i don't think there's any question that a lot of people need a lot of information. i think it's one of the reasons we had millions visit the site, try to visit the site. it's why i am so frustrated and disappointed that the site is not fully functional and why i'm so committed to getting it functional, because clearly, there is a demand. we need to get information to people about the law. this is the law, this is not any longer a debate. it was a law passed by both houses of congress, signed by the president of the united states, upheld by the supreme court. the president was reelected. it is the law. and people have benefits and rights under that law, and we've got to get that information so they can make good choices for themselves and their families. >> well, thank you. it is the law, and, frankly, i find it disconcerting that my republican colleagues have done nothing but root for this law to

fail for the last three and a half years. and now there's a big show here of being upset at problems with the website and keeping people from signing up for coverage fast enough. so i would just say to my colleagues on the other side of the aisle, you're really on the wrong side of history here. the website will be fixed and millions of americans will be able to get quality affordable health insurance coverage through the affordable care act. and again, i thank you for being here today, madam. >> mr. pitts, chairman of the health committee. >> thank you, mr. chairman. welcome, madam secretary. have you personally tried to register or enroll on the website? >> sir, i created an early light account so i would see the prompts that were coming to people who were interested. i did work my way to the application feature fairly early on, but frankly, i have affordable health care, so i -- >> i wondered if you have been through the process that

millions of americans are having to go through. madam secretary, the initial website crashes appear to be largely a result of the decision to prevent browsing of the plans. cgi federal testified at our hearing last week that they had designed the website to allow users to browse and compare plans before having to create an account. ms. campbell told us that two weeks prior to the october 1st launch, they were told to turn off the browsing feature. were you aware in september that this decision was made? >> sir, i wasn't aware of that particular decision that was made by the cms team. i was aware that we were pearing back some features to not put additional risk on the website. >> and who made that decision? who made that decision? >> administrator tavenner made that decision. >> and do you know why that was made? >> yes, sir, because we were anxious to get the website up

and running and functional, which we clearly have failed to do to date, although i would suggest the website has never crashed. it is functional, but at a very slow speed and very low reliability and has continued to function. having said that, they paired down some of the features, feeling that it would be better to load them in later. one was the shop and browse feature. another was the spanish version of the website and the medicaid transfers. all three of those issues were paired down in september to not load the system. >> thank you. thank you. last week, cgi federal and qssi testified that cms was responsible for end-to-end testing and that they believe that months of testing would have been preferable to two weeks. do you believe that two weeks was enough time to complete testing of the entire system? >> clearly, not. >> and when were you made aware of the result of the test,

>> now in "the washington post" on october 21st, there was an article that said about a month before the exchanged open, a testing group of ten insurers urged agency officials not to launch the site because it was riddled with problems. were you aware in september that insurers recommended a delay in the launch of the exchange? >> i was not aware that they recommended delay. i know everyone was concerned that there were risks and there were likely to be problems with

the brand new integrated insurance system. i don't think anyone ever estimated the degree to which we've had problems in the system, and certainly, the contracting partners did not. >> and did hhs respond to the insurers' recommendation to delay the launch? >> sir, i can't -- i wasn't in the meeting. i don't know what occurred in the meeting, and i don't know who they talked to. >> can you find out and answer that question for us? >> sure, i will get back to you. >> thank you. thank you, mr. chairman. >> mr. green? >> thank you, mr. chair. madam secretary, thank you for taking time to be here today. i represent parts of east and northeastern houston harris county and our district has one of the highest uninsured rates in the country. even worse, we have one of the highest rates of people that have jobs but don't receive their insurance through their employer. it's for this reason i believe houston would be a good place for you to come and spread the word about the benefits of the affordable care act, however, you're unable to attend because

of scheduling conflicts. hopefully, we can have agreement some time in the future you'll come to the fourth largest city that probably has the highest number of uninsured in a metropolitan area and we're in the area of texas with the highest uninsured in the country. it's important to me and our constituents to get it right, and that's why i share your and the president's disappointment the website's not working as planned. november 30th is not soon enough. many of my constituents have been waiting for years to be able to purchase health insurance and we owe it to them to get the marketplaces up and running. the contractors have not served our country well and should fix it or not be paid. now we're hearing about the cancellation letters being sent by insurance companies to customers notifying them that their plans are no longer offered. are these americans losing their health care coverage because of the affordable care act, or is it because these plans were changed after the enactment of the act? >> i would say it's the latter, sir. if a plan was in place since the

enactment of the act, no one would have received a cancellation. >> if somebody in america had an insurance plan before the act and the president was correct, if you have -- if you like what you have, you can keep it. the plans were changed, so now they have to comply with the new law. >> they can either choose to be grandfathered and keep the same plan, which meant the same benefits and actually the regulation allows insurance companies to charge medical inflation, plus a trend line, so they didn't have to charge the same price. they could increase it, they could increase co-pays, they could increase co-insurance. what they couldn't do is cancel benefits that the policy holder relied on. they couldn't disadvantage the policy holder, but if that plan is in effect, absolutely, it's still in effect. >> but some of these millions of letters we're hearing about are probably because their plans changed? >> absolutely. and again, in the individual market, plans change every year. insurers design new products. >> even in a small business

market that happens. these plans are not allowed now because they are completely inadequate and don't offer the minimum essential benefits, is that correct? >> that's correct. >> and having been a state legislator and i know as governor in kansas, i assume every state has some type of minimum mandated benefits that they have for their health insurance plans. >> they do, but it applies, again, sir, in the past usually to the group markets, where 90% of covered americans get their policies. this market has always been the wild west. >> the americans received those letters from their companies about cancellations, they are eligible to purchase plans on the exchange? >> or out of the exchange. individuals who don't -- aren't interested in some kind of financial help can go outside the exchange, inside the exchange. their insurer can offer them plans. they have choices they've never had before. >> because of the benefits of theca affordable care act, 80% their premium dollar will come back to them? >> that's correct. >> i don't know any states that

have that 80% requirement. >> no state had it, i would suggest, in that kind of broad base prior to the affordable care act, so it's -- >> let me give you an example of one of the plans i found out during case work, a large company provided $25,000 maximum benefit for their employees during the year. most of the employees didn't know about it, until this one constituent found out that she had cancer, and the bill ended up being $300,000. and so that's some of those plans that are not being allowed to be sold now, is that correct? >> well, not only would the plan have a limit on out of pocket costs per year, it would have a limit on a lifetime out of costs, and it will take away the notion that you would run out of your coverage in the middle of a treatment, which a lot of plans do. >> i know i'm out of my time, but it's like buying a car, if they look good, but if it doesn't have a motor, it's no good to have that car. >> save a lot of gas -- >> jebt lman's time has expired.

gentleman from oregon, mr. walden. >> thank you very much, mr. chairman, governor, secretary, delighted to have you before the committee. you and i both know how important this issue is to all americans that we get it right. so i hope you can appreciate we're trying to understand what we missed along the way, and one of the things that bothered me was the letter that was sent from your agency to the gao back in june 6th. and i'll read in part, it said, "we're in the final stages of finalizing and testing the i.t. infrastructure that will support the application enrollment process. hhs is extremely confident that on october 1st, the marketplace will open on schedule and millions of americans will have access to affordable quality health insurance." i'm just an average guy from a small town in oregon, but when i read that, it tells me you believed everything was good to go, the testing was in place, and we should have full confidence everything would work. correct? >> that's the letter i signed,

yes, sir. >> actually, it was signed by your assistant. >> yes, yes. >> same point. i went into this believing your response, your agency's response, things ready to go, we should have full confidence, when someone uses the word "extremely confident," tells me you're extremely confident. second piece, the witnesses last week, i asked about the end-to-end testing and what the industry standard would be, and they said it will be should have been months, especially for a project of this magnitude, yet we heard it was only two weeks. now in august, gci told cms in their report -- >> cgi. >> i'm sorry, cgi, thank you. august 9th there was not enough time in the schedule to conduct adequate performance testing. did that make its way all the way to you, and do you think there was adequate time? >> sir, clearly, as i've said before, we did not adequately do end-to-end testing.

the products were not locked and loaded into the system until the third week in september. each of the component parts was tested, validated, independently val validated. >> i'm sorry. all those worked, they told us last week their individual modules were tested and met specification, do you concur with that analysis, based on what you know? >> i do concur with the testing, yes. >> it really was end to end, which is why some of us thought we should delay until it could be done right to avoid this very collapse that now is upon us. i realize not everybody agreed with that. the second piece gets back to "the washington post," which you haven't had a chance to read this morning, but the four pinocchios about the president repeatedly saying if you have a plan, you'll keep your plan. we all heard that to mean, i have a plan with a company, i will continue to keep it if they make minor changes, when, in

fact, no, that's really not what's going to happen. if minor changes are made, that means the plan changed, that means you don't get it. >> sir, that isn't true. the rules did not say what you just suggested, and i think the estimate given that there would be turnover in the market was really an outside projection. it wasn't our rules. it's a snapshot of what happens in the market, that plans change so dramatically -- >> every year. >> -- over time, that the estimate was not because of our rules, but because of insurance companies' business decisions. >> you said those market rules looked like they had to comply with, correct? >> only if they chose not to grandfather the policy. that's -- >> that meant they couldn't make any changes. >> any grandfather policy stayed in place, still would be in place. none of these rules apply. >> but if they made any change -- >> they could make changes in pricing, they could make changes in benefits. they couldn't dramatically disadvantage the consumer, but they could have trend lines,

they had a wide corridor to make sure that a similar plan, so if a consumer liked the plan, the plan, if it stayed in place -- >> here's what the practical implication, i have letters from constituents all over my district who have letters from their insurers who say because of obama care, they are no longer going to be in the individual market, or at least with that plan in the individual market, and the result is this person from cove, oregon, i was paying $600 a month for a $3,000 deductible, now it's $800 a month for a $5,000 deductible. i've got others here i'll put in the record. a woman whose job she had 40 hours, now down to 29, neither has health insurance, nor enough income to live on her own because of the way this law is getting implemented. i realize my time's expired. >> gentle lady from colorado. >> thank you very much, mr. chairman, and thank you, secretary, for being with us today. i want to follow up on a couple of those questions that mr. walden was asking you about cgi.

as you know, chairman issa last night released this document, monthly project status report from cgi last night, and it looks to me as sort of a technical document that has a punch list of outstanding open issues. and some of them do highlight items that upon first read seem to be alarming. for example, one of the entries said, due to the compressed schedule, there's not enough time built in to allow for adequate performance testing. and this certainly, in retrospect, sounds bad. but the date of the document that chairman issa released is september 6th, and then on september 10th, four days later, cgi came into this committee and testified under oath, quote, cgi federal is confident it will deliver the functionality that cms has directed. and we're trying to figure out, at least i'm trying to figure

out, how cgi is now coming in and saying, you know, we warned everybody that this wasn't going to be ready, when they came in and directly told me that they would be ready to launch on october 1st. so it kind of raises a question, how these statements can be reconci reconciled. one explanation is cgi was lying to this committee. i think that's unlikely. another is that cgi thought that the items flagged in the report were like a punch list that could be addressed. so here's my question to you, madame secretary, was cgi telling your department the same thing that they told the committee on september 10th, that the company was confident that its programs would be ready? >> congresswoman, all of the contractors testified here in september and again, i think, last week before this committee. and the testimony was fairly similar, that they were ready to

go in september. they were asked in -- last week if they had suggested that we should delay the launch date. each of them said, no. >> they never asked you to delay launch date? >> they did not. and frankly, i think it is not valuable at this point to do a lot of pointing blame, fixing the blame. what i want to do is fix the problem. i think we need the whole team to move ahead and we will report back regularly. >> but we're relying on these contractors who fix this, so that goes to my last question, which is, mr. zintz has now come in and he says the site is going to be up for the vast majority of users by the end of november, is that right? >> that's correct. >> and given what cgi told us and the other vendors, do you believe that that is correct? do you believe it will be pretty much ready to go by the end of

november? >> i do. and i think that we are making improvements each and every day. it is easier to use now than it was two weeks ago. it is way from where we need it to be. >> so it's not like it's all going to be fine by the end of november, it's beginning to improve already. is that your testimony? >> it is a continuous process, as websites are. patches are made, fixes are made on an ongoing basis, and as we find issues like congresswoman eshu talked about, we're fixing them in realtime. >> and you're going to guarantee, yes or no, people are going to have privacy? >> absolutely. >> immateri >> i want to say one more thing, i was on -- max got a letter from his insurance company that his insurance was cancelled, so what he did was he went on to the we

[captioning performed by national captioning institute] [captions copyright national cable satellite corp. 2013] >> your comments and thoughts on the website and your experience. if you've had a good experience with the website, the number to call is 202-585-3885. if you've had a bad specious, that number is 202-585-3886 and if you haven't tried the website or don't plan to try using the healthcare.gov website or your state exchange websites you can call 202-585-3887. our hashtag is #cspanchat. we'll read tweets as well. before we get to your calls, late news on a poll from nbc and the "wall street journal." here's the tweet on that. they write, the details in the

latest nbc-"wall street journal" poll, obama approval and public's approval of g.o.p. both hit all-time lows. expanding on that in the "wall street journal" online, their headline is "scorn spreads to both sides." obama approval hits new low in new poll. >> from the "wall street journal" and nbc. their poll is out. let's hear about your experience. we go first to barry, alabama, and elsa. tell ugs what you've found --

tell white house you've found. >> this is lisa. >> lisa, go ahead, yes, i'm sorry. >> it's ok. i have a lisp. they're talking about affecting group insurance. me and my husband had a business in alabama for 16 years. group insurance. blue cross/blue shield, alabama. and we received our letter which ropped our premium $200, but increased the deductible from $600 per person, which there's $2,000 the policy, to per individual. plus every day you're in the hospital for the first five ys, you will pay $500 out of your pocket. $ >> 500 a day? >> a day. for the first five days you're hospitalized. >> this is the new policy you're looking at? >> yeah, through blue cross/blue

shield of alabama. which is obamacare. the e all it offers is bronze, silver and platinum, just like on the website. >> ok. >> ok. also, what's strange is we added up and had our accountant look at it and a lawyer and what it came out to be is we pay $25,000 out of pocket expense before it pays one penny. >> lisa, thanks for sharing your experience. you're seeing some video of president obama earlier today in boston. he was speaking at a hall, the site of m.i.t. romney's announcement -- mitt romney's announcement of the so-called romneycare in massachusetts and this is a tweet from paul who says -- >> let's go to kathleen who had a new experience. >> yes, good evening.

i was listening to the previous caller and it's very interesting. i'm a teacher here in florida and i also had the blue cross/blue shield but this is very interesting and i think people should be aware. it is insurance companies that are changing the policies that they offer, all right? and i can honestly say to you this has happened in the school district that i am in for each year prior to obamacare, obamacare and -- >> so this is an annual thing that happens. >> exactly. it has nothing to do with the affordable care act. it has been ongoing. that in other words the h.m.o., we go do then the premium h.m.o. and a new h.m.o. would come in and then you'd have a different t.t.o. -- p.p.o. and this has been ongoing for years. but that's not why i called. i did call because did i go on the affordable care act site to find out exactly what was going

on. because i do teach history and get quite a number of questions on different current vepen -- events. and this was in october. and the government was closed, if anybody remembers that, i didn't know how that actually affected the workings of the website also. which i guess maybe it didn't, no one thought that out. but it was frustrating. in the beginning. all right? it was freezing, i actually got a live person that said to me that, you know, they are trying very hard but things are just not kicking in. and on the second day i went on and bottom line, after three tries, i actually got close, i actually looked at everything, you know, that i was interested in and could ascertain what i needed. so, yes, definitely there were glitches. >> what grade do you teach? >> i am a high school teacher. i teach american history. >> and your students are asking a lot about the current -- >> what we do, yes, sir, because what we do is try to make

history relevant. if you're going back to teddy roosevelt who first tried to get health care here, you go through presidents, then you can compare and say, hey, look, it's back and forth. republican, democrat, republican, democrat. everybody wanted affordable health care. >> thanks for sharing your experience. let's hear from michael who is in clarksberg, west virginia, has not yet tried the website. >> hi, there. thanks for taking my call. >> sure. >> i do not plan to use the website. but all due respect to your last caller, she was saying something that, you know, it's the insurance companies that are changing their policies and what not. she referenced blue cross/blue shield. of course it's the insurance companies. the united states government does not have an insurance company. the companies that are out there providing insurance are the exchanges for the healthcare.gov site. so these companies that are providing health care to most people out there are the ones that are going to be providing

this health care to those that don't have insurance. it's still an insurance company. and they are adjusting to take these new soon to be very needed patients and those of us out here that have insurance coverage through these companies are losing our policies because they are adjusting to these new debts. >> you have received one of those letters we're hearing about, about losing your policy? >> i have not. not yet. but the problem is going to be, and the director in my state, blue cross/blue shield, which is the only exchange in west virginia as of right now, pretty much said if healthy young americans are not on that exchange, unless virginia -- it's pretty much going to self-destruct. the director of blue cross/blue shield pretty much said that and that's the biggest problem. the previous caller is right, of course these insurance policies are sending out notices because they're bracing everybody for the fact that all these new

people who's going to sign up for the website are people who need health insurance now to take care of some illness or whatever and those of us that have had policies, ours are shifting because of all these new people coming on. so it's going to create a massive change and, yes, people are going to get canceled, they're going to lose insurance and if healthy people aren't on these exchanges or on services, and our premiums will go up, you know, this whole thing's going to collapse. that's the bottom line here. the united states government isn't in the insurance business. of course it's not them. it's all the insurance companies out there and they're adjusting to take on this new wave of people who need insurance, they'll be paying out premiums that i have paid to cover their costs and it's going to be a real problem. >> all right, thanks for sharing your appearance have -- your experience there in west virginia. couple of tweets.

>> tell us about your experience on the website. >> well, i think that -- i started on october 1 to go on the website. and i started having problems and i have real problems. there's no problem in waiting. i think that the problem is that it's such a massive program, like they said, they didn't test it properly. it wasn't unfolded right. and i think that the republicans can make a lot of hay with it. but as far as the actual prices of the plans, you can go in there under find premium estimates and you can actually

see that the premiums don't look bad. the problem is once you see what the premium costs are, you can't look at the actual plans themselves, like you say, to see what the coops are, to see what the drug benefits are. i think people should have had the browsing. i think most people right now want to see what plans are available. maybe in west virginia it's a backward state and they only have, like he said, blue cross/but blue shield, but here in pennsylvania, i was -- it shows 38 different plans that are available. >> right. it shows you the broad plan, it doesn't show you the details. you have to go in and register for the details, correct? >> right. they say. that they say you have to fill out the application and until the application is processed, you won't be able to see what the plans are. >> all right. appreciate the call. trying to get as many as we can. let's hear from terrence who is in jones bro, georgia, had a good experience on the website. >> yes, thank you for taking my

call. i had a real good experience on the affordable care act site and i wasing about it is that able to go three or four times into the site and i had no problem with it. the thing about it is i think that we all got to work together and try to get this thing moving . thank you. >> all right. terrence. a tweet from bill who says -- > the hashtag is #cspanchat. maggie is in fort wayne, indiana, and has not tried the website yet. >> hi. i want to start by just thanking c-span for all that you air. i'm really gaining a lot of knowledge. and i've chosen not to try the site until i hear that the site is usable. and i just am choosing not to,

you know, wade through potential errors and delays. so that's why i've chosen -- i do need affordable health insurance, uvee been denied -- i've been denied for so many, like, i don't know. i mean, it's stunning how difficult it is to get insurance . i hold two part-time jobs to ensure enough income to plan for my future and pay my monthly expenses and the one insurance i do have and i'm grateful for it, but beyond a co-pay for a standard examine, i have to ock off a $10,000 deductible before they pitch in on anything. and i have a scary circumstance that needs looking into but i don't have the extra cash for that particular investigation.

so, you know, i look forward to looking at the site and looking into my choices. i'm just going to wait until all the havoc has been kind of teased out. >> appreciate your call, maggie, and all your calls this evening. a couple of quick tweets before we wrap up. >> president obama is in boston today, tomorrow with the white house. >> a tweet there from a white house reporter. thanks for all your calls. more of them tomorrow morning on "washington journal" but up here next, today's 3 1/2-hour hearing before the house energy committee with secretary of health and human services, kathleen sebelius.

>> good morning, everyone. good morning.

committee -- the energy and commerce committee welcomes the president posses person on health care, secretary sibelius. we look forward to a thoughtful conversation on a number of issues, including transparency. over the months leading -- leading up to the october 1 launch, the secretary and her colleagues repeatedly looked us in the eye and testified everything was on track. despite the numerous red flags testing, they assured us all systems were go. something happened along the way, either those officials did not know how bad the situation was, or they did not disclose it. are five weeks into enrollment and the news seems to get worse by the day. healthcare.gov was down last night at 5:00 p.m. it was down monday and it crashed last weekend.

even this morning when we attempted to view this site, we were hit with an error message. this is more than just a website problem. that was supposed to be the easy part. theirans were assured experience would be similar to other online transactions like purchasing a flight motoring a pizza and that sensitive personal information would always be secure. the administration has pivoted from saying they are on track to setting a new target date. for the few americans who looks at -- successfully applied, the website glitches become provider glitches on america -- on january 1. america's scared and frustrated. people spend hours or even days trying to -- to sign up. up. they continue to take time away from work or loved ones but have

made little progress. and soon they may worry about being on the wrong side of their government facing potential penalties. i recently spoke to a woman from buchanan, michigan, who was excited to sign up but has since become very disillusioned after spending hours on the phone and website with little success. there are also millions of americans coast to coast who no doubt believe that the president's repeated promises if they like their plan, they would be able to keep it no matter what. they are now receiving termination notices and for those who lose their coverage, they may be losing their faith in their government. today's hearing is about fairness for the american people who are losing their coverage or seeing their premiums skyrocket as high as 400%. this hearing is also about transparency. while the administration continues to boast the number of americans that have applied, they intentionally withhold precise enrollment numbers. why? these numbers are critical to

fully understand the status and gauging the progress of implementation. testimony last week was they had data but needed the administration's permission to release it. we asked the secretary on october 8th for those figures but we still have not received a response. we hope to get one today. american people deserve answers and a peace of mind that promises will be kept. the secretary has an opportunity today to embrace transparency and start restoring the public's faith in the administration and the government. i yield to my colleague, ranking member of the committee, mr. waxman. >> thank you, mr. chairman. i'm pleased secretary sebelius is here today. she's here to discuss the affordable care act just like with medicare part d, the launch of the new website has not gone well but just like medicare part d, the early glitches in this rollout will soon be forgotten. a lot of the discussion today

will focus on that website. this is an important issue, and i want to learn what the secretary can tell us about the problems being experienced and how they will be fixed, but we should keep this issue in perspective. the affordable care act is working. it has been improving the health security of millions of americans for the past three years. because of the affordable care act, more than 7 million people on medicare have saved more than $8 billion on their prescription drugs. more than 100 million americans have access to free preventive coverage. and no longer face lifetime limits on their coverage. over 10 million americans have received rebates from insurance companies and finally, this

january, the worst abuses of insurance industry will be halted. never again will a family be denied coverage because their child has a chronic health condition. never again will individuals see their premiums shoot up because they got sick or faced an unexpected medical expense. never again will a woman have to pay twice as much as a man for the same insurance. that is why allowing insurers to continue offering deficient plans next year is such a bad policy. the law says that all plans except those that were grandfathered in 2010, must meet the new consumer protection standards. if we don't enforce this policy, insurance companies can continue offering flimsy coverage that disappears when people actually

need it and no one should want that. it is understandable that there will be a focus today on what isn't working, but we must also remember what is working. the health insurance plans that are being offered in the exchanges are good plans. the premiums are much lower than expected. 60% of the uninsured individuals shopping in the new marketplaces will be able to get coverage for less than $100 per month. half of the young adults will be able to get coverage for less than $50 per month. and since congress adopted the affordable care act, health care costs across the whole economy have grown at their lowest level in decades. the success of the affordable care act is due to the efforts of many people, but one individual more than any other is responsible for all of the good that has been accomplished and that is our witness today, secretary sebelius. so i would urge my colleagues to

stop hyperventilating. the problems with healthcare.gov are unfortunate and we should investigate them and then every american will have access to affordable health insurance. thank you, mr. chairman. >> before we swear in secretary sebelius, i want to clarify energy and commerce committee practice for swearing in of witnesses. the committee typically has two types of hearings. oversight hearings and hearings that focus on legislation and policy. secretary sebelius, for example, has testified previously before our committee to discuss issues relating to hhs budget or other policy matters. as is the case with all policy witnesses, secretary sebelius was not required to take an oath prior to testifying. today's hearing is different. it's an oversight hearing. it is a long standing committee practice to swear in all

witnesses at oversight hearings whether they are private citizens or cabinet secretaries. >> mr. chairman, i thank you for your comments. i just want to join you in simply explaining that swearing in of the witness before an oversight committee hearing has always been under oath. that is a standard procedure in this committee when we're conducting an oversight hearing so it may seem strange to have the secretary of health and human services have to be sworn in, but all witnesses in an oversight hearing are sworn in and that is our procedure. >> thank you. so i would now like to introduce our witness for today's hearing. the honorable kathleen sebelius is the secretary of the department of health and human services. she was appointed to this position in april of 2009. and was sworn in as the 21st secretary on april 28th, 2009. so i will now swear you in if you would rise.

as ranking waxman and i just discussed, the committee is holding an investigative hearing and when doing so have had the practice of taking testimony under oath. do you have any objection to testifying under oath? and the chair now advises you that you are -- i would now read you -- do you swear that the testimony you are about to give is the truth, the whole truth and nothing but the truth? you are now under oath and subject to penalties set forth in title 18 section 1001 of the u.s. code. you may now give a five-minute summary of your written statement. welcome again and thank you for being here. you have to use that mike. you don't know how many people want to hear you this morning. >> thank you, chairman, upton, ranking member waxman, members of the committee. i left my position as governor of kansas 4 1/2 years ago for

the opportunity to continue work i've been doing for most of my over 35 years of public service, to expand the opportunities for all americans regardless of geography or gender or income to have affordable health coverage. during my years as the state legislator, as an elected insurance commissioner, as head of the national association of insurance commissioners and as a two-term governor and now as hhs secretary, i have worked on that effort that i care deeply about. there are still millions of americans who are uninsured as well as underinsured. people who have some coverage at some price for some illness but have no real protection from financial ruin and no real confidence they'll be able to take care of themselves and their families if they have an accident or an illness and for them a new day has finally come. in these early weeks, access to

healthcare.gov has been a frustrating experience for many americans including many who have waited years for security of health insurance. i am as frustrated and angry as anyone with the flawed launch of healthcare.gov. let me say directly to these americans, you deserve better. i apologize. i'm accountable to you for fixing these problems. i'm committed to earning your confidence back by fixing the site. we're working day and night and will continue until it's fixed. we recently added new management talent, additional technical expertise to manage fixes across the system in two broad categories, speed and function. our extensive assessment has

determined that healthcare.gov is fixable. we now have more users successfully creating accounts. we can process up to 17,000 account registrations per hour or nearly five per second. instead of some of the users seeing a blank screen at the end of the application process, they can now see whether they're eligible for financial assistance and make more informed decisions. because we've improved performance, customers can shop for plans. it takes seconds and not minutes. users are getting fewer errors and time-out messages as they move through the application process and the system has been strengthened with double the size of servers, software that's better optimized and a high capacity physical data base replacing a virtual system. the chairman referred to outages this weekend and again yesterday. i would suggest to the committee that if you read the statement of verizon who hosts the cloud service, it is the verizon

server that failed and not healthcare.gov and affected not just hhs but other customers. we still have a lot of work to do. with very a plan in place to address key outstanding issues. it includes fixing bugs in software that prevented it from working the way it's supposed to and refreshing the user experience so folks can navigate the site without encountering slower response times and by the end of we're committed that the vast majority of users will be able to shop for health care without problems being experienced. problems are being solved. we know that we don't have a fully functioning system that consumers need and deserve. we are still at the beginning of a six-month open enrollment which extends through the end of march and there's plenty of time to sign up. just to put it in perspective.

average open enrollment for the average insurance plan is two to four weeks. the new marketplace at 26-week open enrollment and those that enroll by december 15th will access their benefits on day one. even with the unacceptable problems with healthcare.gov which we are committed to fixing the affordable care act is working for millions of americans who are benefiting from new health security, young adults, americans living with pre-existing health conditions, seniors on medicare. 85% of americans who already have health coverage are protected with new rights and benefits. the 15% of our neighbors and friends who are uninsured have affordable new options in a competitive market. and cost growth for health care is lower than it's been in years. millions of americans are clearly eager to learn about their options and to finally achieve health security made possible by the affordable care act. my commitment is to deliver on

that promise. thank you, mr. chairman. >> well, thank you very much. the mike got pulled a little bit from you. can you fix that? i appreciate you being here this morning and we've worked with our leadership to see that we don't have votes on the house floor this morning so we won't be interrupted. i appreciate your time for sure and in an effort to allow every member to ask a question, we're going to be reducing the time for questions to be just four minutes so hopefully we can get through all of the members that are here. i'm going to be pretty fast with the gavel let me just say. we have plenty of questions. so let's try to get through them. you know, i think everyone in america remembers the president's words. if you like your health care plan, you can keep it.

period. under the affordable care act insurance policies that were in effect on march 23rd, 2010, when the law was enacted, would be grandfathered. then a few months later despite the president's word, hhs helped promulgate a new reg that in your own review showed that it could affectively deny as much as 50% or maybe even higher of those holding individual policies the right to renew their own insurance plan. i would guess there are a lot of us on this panel today hearing from angry and confused constituents who are now being forced to go onto an inept website, whether they like it or not, to shop for a new replacement policy. they find premiums often more than 100% what they were paying before. some even as high as 400% as i've heard from and rising

deductibles as well. so when was the president specifically informed of the regulation change and if so, was it pointed out that this totally undermines his biggest selling point and i would note that on the screen in a statement that he made more than three years after the regulation change was promulgated, the president said again so the first thing you need to know is this. if you already have health care, you don't have to do anything. so he's been on the same page from the very start yet the regulations changed months after the bill was enacted that are now causing perhaps millions of americans to be denied the ability to renew their individual coverage. why was that change made? and did the president know it? >> mr. chairman, there was no change. the regulation involving grandfathered plans which

applied to both the employer market and the individual market indicated that if a plan was in effect in march of 2010, stayed in effect without unduly burdening the consumer with reducing benefits and adding on huge costs, that plan would stay in effect and never have to comply with any regulations of the affordable care act. that's what the grandfather clause said. the individual market which affects about 12 million americans, about 5% of the market, people move in and out, they often have coverage for less than a year. a third of them have coverage for about six months. and if a plan was in place in march of 2010 and again did not impose additional burdens on the consumer, they still have it. it's grandfathered in. >> why not let the consumer decide whether to renew it or not? why were regulations promulgated in the summer of 2010 that undermine the ability for those folks to resign up which is a

reason for large cancellation notices. >> we began to implement the other features of the affordable care act. if someone is buying a brand new policy in the individual market today or last week, they will have consumer protections for the first time. many people in the individual market are medically underwritten. that will be illegal. many women are charged 50% more than men. that will be illegal. you cannot again eliminate someone because of a pre-existing health condition. you can't dump someone else or lock someone out. those provisions -- if again, a plan is in place and was in place at the time that the president signed the bill and the consumer wants to keep the plan, those individuals are grandfathered in and that's happening across the country in the individual market. >> we're learning in fact that folks who did have a plan who liked it in fact are being told that it's canceled in the last -- my time expired. let me yield to the ranking member, mr. waxman for four minutes.

>> thank you, mr. chairman. i had to smile at your line of questioning because everyone expected this hearing was about the website. that's all we've been hearing about is the website. but that's not the only complaint we've been hearing about since the affordable care act was adopted. we were told by our republican friends that millions of jobs would be lost and in fact there have been a gain of 7 million jobs. they said that the cost for health care would skyrocket and in fact the opposite is true. they said there would be a massive shift to part-time jobs and evidence doesn't support that. tens of millions will lose their insurance. in fact, everybody in this country is going to have access to health insurance because they won't be discriminated against. they said that it would explode the deficit and yet all of the reputable organizations like the congressional budget office have told us it will save us $100 billion over ten years. so we've had a litany of

objections from the republicans about the affordable care act, which has driven them to such a frenzy, they even closed the government. now we have you before the committee. and you're being asked, i suppose, later about the website. let me pursue this question about individuals who have gotten notices that they're going to have their individual insurance policies canceled. they'll be able to get another plan, won't they? >> actually, it's the law that they must get another plan. continuous coverage is part of the law. and that wasn't the case in the past. >> so the affordable care act said we're going to end the worst abuses of insurance companies. we're going to create consumer protections in the marketplace that they will be able to buy a policy even if they had been sick in the past that women won't be charged more than men, that we're not going to let insurance companies deny

coverage because of pre-existing conditions. we're not going to let them put these lifetime caps and they'll be an essential benefit package so you don't just buy some things and not having other things covered. you'll have the minimum that everybody should have. prescription drugs, mental health coverage, doctors in hospitals. are these important consumer protections? >> i would say, mr. waxman, they are very important. as a former insurance commissioner, i can tell you that the individual market in kansas and anywhere in the country has never had consumer protections. people are on their own. they could be locked out. priced out. dumped out. that happened each and every day so this will finally provide the kind of protections that we all enjoy in our health care plans as part of a group, as part of a plan that has prenegotiated benefits. we enjoy that kind of health security and individuals in the buying insurance on their own, farm families, entrepreneurs, mom and pop shops, young adults,

have never had that kind of health security. >> now they're going to have this health security and most of the plans as i understand it they are no longer going to be able to keep don't meet all of the standards of the law. >> again, i think you may have heard pat garrity from florida blues on some of the sunday shows and he talks about the fact that the florida plans want to keep their customers. they have new plans to offer. they feel that a lot of people and these are mr. garrity's words will have a much better plan at similar or lower cost. 50% of these 11 to 12 million people qualify for financial help purchasing insurance for the first time ever. >> the bottom line is people with good coverage like medicare, medicaid, employer coverage, can keep that. people with grandfathered plans through the individual market will be able to keep it.

if an insurance company sold you a new modified health insurance policy after the date of the enactment that does not meet the law's standards, then those people will be able to go into the exchange and buy a real solid health insurance plan that won't discriminate against them or anybody else. i think that's a good result. i'm pleased with it. i think most people will be as well. >> gentleman's time has expired. chair recognizes the vice chair of the committee, ms. blackburn. >> madame secretary, before, during and after the law was passed the president kept saying if you like your health care plan, you can keep it so is he keeping his promise? >> yes, he is. >> okay. what do you say to 300,000 people in florida you just mentioned or to the 28,000 in tennessee that cannot get health insurance? their plans are terminated. is he keeping his promise to them? >> first of all, congresswoman, they can get health insurance. they must be offered new plans,

new options, either inside the mark marketplace or if they don't qualify for a financial subsidy they can shop inside or outside of the marketplace. >> what do you say to nbc news that say they will lose their coverage? >> i think it's important to be accurate about what is going on and i would defer again to the president of the -- they will have continuing coverage and offered new plans. >> madame secretary, what do you say to mark and loucinda in my district who had plan and it was affordable and now it's terminated and they don't have coverage. >> they are a one-year contract with individuals. they are not lifetime plans. they are not an employer plan.

>> let me move on. i will remind you some people like to drive a ford and not a ferrari and some drink out of a red solo cup and not a crystal stem. let's put the screen shot up. i want to talk about the website. this is what's happening right now with this website. we had somebody in the back trying to sign on. it is down. it is not working. last week i asked for the cost from each of the contractors that were with us last week. so can you give me a ballpark of what you have spent on this website that does not work that individuals cannot get to? what is your cost estimate? >> so far, congresswoman, we have spent about $118 million on the website self and about $56 million has been expended on

other i.t. to support the web. >> would you submit a detailed accounting of exactly what has been spent and when do you expect constituents to stop getting these kind of error messages? >> again, i was with -- i talked to the president of verizon over the weekend on two occasions. verizon hosts the cloud which is not part of the website. it is a host for a number of websites. the verizon system was taken down saturday night into sunday. it was down almost all day sunday. they had an additional problem they notified us about yesterday and it continues on. so i would be happy to talk to the president of verizon and get you information. >> let me come back to that. i want to come back to the issue of who is in charge of this project because you're now blaming it on the contractors and saying it's verizon's fault so let me ask you this.

did you ever look at outsourcing the role of the system integrator and obviously you did not from the contractors that we had last week. they had several different people whether it was you or gary cohen or michelle snyder or henry chow they thought were in charge. who is responsible for overseeing this project? is it you or your designee? >> i'm not pointing fingers at verizon. i'm explaining how the site operates. we own the site. the site has had serious problems. >> who is in charge, madame secretary? >> the person now in charge as an integrator is -- >> who was in charge as it was being built? of the team, who is the individual -- >> michelle snyder. >> michelle snyder is the one responsible for this debacle? >> excuse me, congresswoman. michelle snyder is not responsible for the debacle.

hold me accountable for the debacle. i'm responsible. >> thank you. i yield back. >> chair recognize mr. dingell from the great state of michigan. >> thank you for your courtesy. i have a few questions i'll ask you on behalf of congressman porter. i asked that i be permitted to extend my remarks. >> without objection. >> i would like to begin by thanking you and welcome you to a room in which your father served for so many years. i begin my questions by quoting from an expert for whom i have enormous respect. he said as follows. "as i mentioned earlier the new benefits and implementation are hard to perfect. rather than trying to scare and confuse seniors, i would hope we can work together as we go through the implementation phase to find out what is wrong with the program and if we can make some changes to fix it.

let us do it and let us do it in a bipartisan fashion. it is too big a program and too important to too many people to do that. having said that it does appear that it is working. let us not keep beating a dead horse." my beloved friend who gave us the beginning of our efforts today. madame secretary, i see reports that consumers receiving plan cancellation notices from their insurance companies saying that plans are no longer available. does the aca require insurance companies to discontinue the plans that people had when the law was passed, yes or no? >> not when the law was passed. no, sir. that's the grandfather clause. >> that's because the plans existed prior to passage of the law are grandfathered in as you have said? >> that's correct. >> so if an insurance company is no longer offering a certain plan, that's because that

insurance company made a decision to change their policies and that caused them to take away the grandfather status from their insurance purchasers, is that right? >> that's correct. >> now, madame secretary. i want you to submit for the record a statement of what it is we can do about insurance companies that run around canceling the policies of their people and i don't have time to get the answer but i want to get a very clear statement from you as to what you can do so we can take some skin off some folks that have it coming. madame secretary, it's my understanding that these decisions of a business character are most common in the individual insurance market and that much turnover already exists and existed prior to the enactment of the legislation. >> that's correct. >> is that correct? >> yes, sir. >> is it correct that 35% to 60%

of the enrollees in individual market leave their plan after one year for different reasons? >> a third are in less than six months in the individual market and over 50% are in for less than a year, yes, sir. >> now, in the cancellation letters which move around from the insurance companies, some insurance companies are suggesting an alternative plan at a higher price. do they have a right to do that? >> they have a right to do that, sir, but consumers have a right to shop anywhere to compare plans and they have choices now that they've never had before and some financial assistance coming their way for 50% of those people. >> no right to enforce that demand on the insurance company? >> no one is rolled over into a plan. individuals for the first time ever will have the ability to compare plans, to shop, and to make a choice inside or outside the marketplace. >> looks to me like the insurance companies are trying to inflict on their customers

the view that this is their right and that this is the only option available to them, is that correct? >> i think that insurance companies would like to keep their customers. having said that, customers for the first time have a lot of choices. >> the insurance companies have no right to enforce that view on customers? >> there's no rule that says you have to stay with your company or be rolled over -- >> gentleman's time has expired. gentleman's time has expired. chair recognizes the gentleman from texas, mr. barton. >> before i ask my questions, we have a former member of the committee on the democrat side from the great state of kansas in the audience. we are glad to have you. madame secretary, we're glad to have you too. >> thank you, sir. >> there's a famous movie called "the wizard of oz" and in "the

wizard of oz" there's a great line. dorothy at some point in the movie turns to her dog toto and says "we're not in kansas anymore." madame secretary, while you're from kansas, we're not in kansas anymore. some might say that we are actually in "the wizard of oz" land given the parallel universes we appear to be habitating. mr. waxman and most of those on the democrat side think things are great. you apparently although you did apologize and you have said it's a debacle, you also seem to think that the affordable care act is great. myself and others have a different view. ultimately the american people will decide. now, last week when the contractors were here, i focused my attention on the apparent lack of privacy in the website. if we'll put up the first slide that i had last week.

if we can. this is what is public, madame secretary. it's basically a disclaimer that says any unauthorized attempt to upload information or change information on the website is prohibited. it really doesn't say anything about privacy. you do have to accept that in order to go forward with the application. the next slide shows what's not public. this is in the source code. we tried to determine this morning if it was still in the source code but pointed out the website is down. this is much more frightening to me. it says you have no reasonable expectation of privacy regarding any communication or data transiting or information stored on the system at any time or any lawful government purpose, the government may monitor and intercept, search and seize any communication or data transiting or stored on the information

system. any communication or data transiting or stored on this information system may be disclosed or used for any lawful government purpose. cheryl campbell of cgi federal said she was aware of it but it wasn't her responsibility to put that in the source code. were you a aware of it and was it your responsibility to put this in the source code? >> mr. barton, i did not put things in the source code. i can tell you that it's my understanding that that is boilerplate language that should not have been in this particular contract because there are the highest security standards in place and people have every right to expect privacy. >> all right. now, the last time we could check, this was still there. you are given almost unlimited authority under the affordable care act to administer it. will you commit to the committee and to the american people that,

one, you do want to protect their privacy and, two, you will take this out and fix it and make sure that it doesn't have bearing on people that try to apply through the website. >> yes, sir. we have had those discussions with cgi. it is under way. i do absolutely commit to protecting the privacy of the american public and we have asked them to remove that statement. it is there in error. it needs to be taken down and we should be held accountable for protecting privacy. >> thank you, madame secretary. i sincerely appreciate that and i'm sure the american people do too. my last question or really a comment. i introduced hr-3348 saying let's make this system voluntary for the first year since we've having so many problems and let the american people decide. what at that means is if people choose not to participate, they will not be charged the penalty for nonparticipation. would you support such a reasonable approach to this while we work out the problems

in the system? >> no, sir. >> okay. that's an honest answer. >> gentleman's time has expired. chair would recognize gentleman from new jersey, mr. pallone. >> thank you, mr. chairman. i know we're not in kansas but i do believe increasingly we're in oz because of what i see here. this "wizard of oz" comment by my colleague from texas i think is particularly aa pro given what we see on the other side. i don't know how you keep your cool with the gop trying to scare people and bring up red herrings. i'm going to ask you a question about that. before that, i want to say this whole idea brought up today that somehow policies are being canceled and people don't have alternativ alternatives, it's just another red herring.

what my colleagues on the other side forget is this is not socialized medicine. this is in fact private insurance in a competitive market. if i'm an insurance company and all of a sudden everyone else is selling a better policy with benefit benefits at a lower price, i can't continue to sell a lousy policy that doesn't provide benefits and cost more because i'll be out of the market so that's what's happening here. insurance companies are canceling lousy policies with high prices because they can't compete. that's what's going to happen when you have a private insurance market, which is what we have here. we don't have a government controlled system. we have private markets. so i just want to make that point. i have to drill down on what mr. barton said here. before reform, the individual insurance market was dysfunctional, premiums would shoot up if people got sick, coverage could be canceled if they had a pre-existing condition, and they did not have secure quality coverage. now, i heard my republican colleagues say that patient health insurance will be at risk

in this application process and this is flat out also. a giant leap forward for protecting health insurance by taking it out of the insurance application process and banning discrimination based on pre-existing conditions. mr. barton again is raising this red herring just like the cancellation of insurance by talking about privacy. madame secretary, prior to the aca when people applied for insurance coverage, did insurers make them provide an invasive medical history but because the law bans discrimination based on pre-existing conditions, they do not need to provide this information in their applications. please comment on the privacy issue and why it's irrelevant. >> in the past, any individual american who was in an employer based coverage, in government

coverage like we enjoy in medicare and medicaid and a variety of plans, that's about 95% of insured americans had no medical underwriting. had group protections. had consumer protections. the people who were outside that consumer protected space were individuals buying their own coverage in an individual market. medical underwriting demanding health records and often going through extensive doctor interviews and getting health records were a standard for that market. pricing could very widely dep d depending on gender and health condition, people could be denied coverage and were frequently. that's the market that is currently being reformed with consumer protections. if a person had a policy in place in march of 2010 like that policy and the insurance company made no changes to disadvantage the consumer, those policies are in place. you keep the plan and that goes on. for people that had a medically

underwritten policy, were paying more than their neighbor because they happened to be female, could not get their health condition for a fixed hip written into their insurance plan, they'll have a new day in a very competitive market. 25% of the insurers are brand new to the market offering competitive plans. >> mr. chairman, could i just ask that this document -- >> put it into the record without objection. >> chair would recognize mr. hall. >> thank you, mr. chairman. madame secretary, i think congresswoman blackburn asked you about the federal government and how much they spent today and they're spending some money as we speak, aren't they? it's down right now, isn't it? you project ongoing problems? >> i'm sorry, sir. i'm having a hard time hearing. >> she asked you how much it had

spent today and i'm asking what you expect to pay in addition to that on the repairs that the website is going to require and they require them as we speak here. so those are things you projected and you knew they would happen and they will happen. but you looked ahead and you have some estimate of what is going to happen. >> yes, sir. >> and going to cost. >> for our two major contractors who are ussi, subsidiary of united and for cgi, there are obligated amounts. for cgi who is in charge of the entire application, there has been $197 million obligated and that is to last through march of 2014 and as i said before about $104 million has been expended in that obligated amount.

>> i'm going to try to be here in 2014 to make sure your testimony is correct, okay. i'm just joking with you. >> okay. >> and were you born in kansas? >> i was not. i was born in cincinnati, ohio. i married a kansan and went to kansas. >> i was in the third grade there. i thought i saw you on a tricycle one day. >> it was an illusion. >> let me ask you a question, have you ever rejected a financial bail from one of the contractors? have you ever? >> have i ever -- >> rejected a financial bail from one of them? >> sir, again, our -- >> i guess you can say yes or no. >> our accounting office does a routine audit and review of every bill before they do it. i do not personally. i want to be very accurate that i don't personally pay

contracts, negotiate contracts, by law and by precedent that's really illegal for someone who isn't a warranted contract officer to engage in the debate or discussion around federal contracts. >> how much has the administration spent on the exchanges in total? not just healthcare.gov but all of the exchanges? >> sir -- >> how difficult is that figure to give me or if you can't give it to me, could you send it to me? >> i would like to get it to you in writing very quickly. >> madame secretary -- i don't know how much time i have left but i would like to talk about a couple businesses in my district who are struggling with how to move forward. one is a manufacturing and one is pet boarding and training business and one has 85 employees and others have 46. this is another example of the government picking winners and losers. we're the losers. there is no way i can be

competitive if i have to raise prices to cover 170,000. do not pay penalty. raise prices and go out of business. layoff 35 employees and move more production from this country and here's a quote from the other. since they are high labor low margin business cannot afford to pay insurance for employees we're forced to close our business through bankruptcy because there are heavy financial obligations that continue whether we operate or not or five enough employees to get under 50 employees. even if we close the location, we cannot escape many expenses such as rental agreements. what am i supposed to tell these people? >> well, sir, i think that in the employer market, about 95% of all american american businesses are exempt from any kind of requirement to cover employer/employee

insurance, and they are outside the law. they continue to be outside the law, but they will have new options for those who want to cover their employees and some new tax credit possibilities. for large employers, about 96% of them already cover their employees, and as you know, the penalty that your constituents refer to is not a penalty that is imposed in 2014. it is being discussed with businesses about what kind of information will be exchanged -- >> he's going to use the gavel on me if you don't hush. >> gentleman's time is expired. >> i yield back my time. >> gentleman's time is expired. gentle lady from california? >> thank you, mr. chairman. welcome, madame secretary. you're a distinguished woman. you have distinguished yourself and your state, the offices that you've held, and now working for the american people, and i salute you for it.

i want to really congratulate my republican pals for being absolutely, 1,000% consistent. you love what's wrong with the website, and you detest what's working in the affordable care act. and i think that is on full display here. but let's get back to the website, because that's what the hearing is about. it's my understanding that november 31st is a hard date for having everything up and running. do you have -- now hhs did testify in september that they were 100% confident that the site would be launched and fully functional on time on october 1st.

do you have full confidence in this new date? >> -- it will take until november for an optimally functioning website. the only way i can restore confidence to get it right is to get it right. so i have confidence, but i know that it isn't fair to ask the american public to take our word for it. i've got to fix this problem, and we are under way doing just that. >> but are you confident that -- i think i said november 31st, which is -- >> i thought -- >> which does not exist, but november 30th. you have confidence in november 30th? >> i do. >> is there any penalty to qssi or cgi for not delivering on what they promised? >> well, i think the, as you can see, we have a obligated funds for a contract. we certainly have not expended all those funds, and we expect

not only the cms team, but our contractor partners, to fulfill their obligations. >> but if they fail to fulfill their obligations, i don't know what's in the contract, is there a penalty? >> there isn't a built-in penalty, but i can tell you that paying for work that isn't complete is not something that we will do. qssi, as you know, has taken on a new role as integrate tor of the hub that they built and have in operation, is working extremely well, not only for the federal exchanges, but all the state-based markets are using the hub, and that's why we had confidence in their ability to actually take this next roll on and coordinate the activities moving forward, which have to be driven with a very clear set of outcomes, very accountable timelines and deadlines, and they will be helping to manage that process. >> on the issue of security,

there was a security breach that arose recently that i read about, at any rate. and what i think is very important here, because the issue of privacy has been raised, and i think that's been answered, because very importantly there isn't any health information in these systems, but there is financial information. so my question to you is, has a security wall been built, and are you confident that it is there and that it will actually secure the financial information that applicants have to disclose? >> yes, ma'am, i would tell you that there was not a breach. there was a blog by a sort of skilled hacker that if a certain series of incidents occurred, you could possibly get in and

obtain somebody's personally identifiable -- >> isn't that telling? isn't that telling? >> and we immediately corrected that problem. it was a theoretical problem that was immediately fixed. i would tell you, we are storing the minimum amount of data, because we think that's very important. the hub is not a data collector. it is actually using data centers at the irs, homeland security, social security, to verify information, but it stores none of that data, so we don't want to be -- >> thank you. >> gentle lady's time is expired. chair recognizes mr. shimkus. >> thank you, chairman. welcome, madame secretary. madame secretary, before i start my questions, the washington post gave the president and yourself four pinocchios on the debate of if you like this insurance you have, you can keep it. would you recommend the president that he stop using that term? wouldn't that be helpful in this

debate? >> sir, he used the term at the time the bill was passed -- >> september 26th also. >> that's why we wrote -- >> the answer is, you don't believe "the washington post" -- we'll hand this down for you so you can see it. have you ever shopped -- i know you have, but this is for a -- at a grocery store with a coupon? ever used a coupon? >> yes. >> so the coupon gives you the terms and conditions of when you go to the checkout to get whatever's off the price of the goods. when you all added the "c" plans now option, you, in essence, gave the searcher, in essence, a coupon based upon what they are seeing there. the desire was, let people know what the price is. however, as the news reported, and i followed up in last week's hearing, was that if you are under 50 years old, you get

quoted the price of someone who's 27. if you're older than 50, could be 64, you get quoted the price of someone who's 50 years old. isn't that misleading? >> sir, the learn site of the website, which has been out -- >> that's truthful, then, if you quote a price -- >> it is clearly a hypothetical situation that allows people -- >> on the see plans now option, is that a hypothetical? that's not what it says on the site. it says this is the price when you put in your age, and if your age is 49, it quotes you as if you're 27. >> sir, the only way someone can get an accurate information about their price is to get their -- >> let me ask you a question, when did you decide to use this below 50 at 27 and above 50 at 50 years old, when did you make that decision?

>> that was decided by the team -- >> by who? who made -- the problem with this whole debate is y'all won't tell us who made the decisions. >> i can tell you, i did not design the site. >> well who? who made the decision on the 27-year-old quote for someone who's 50? >> i just said i'll get you that information. >> thank you. thank you. let me go to, because it's misleading, and the white house insists it didn't mislead the public, and let me finish on this debate. it's another transparency issue. if someone, a constituent of mine or someone in this country, has strongly held pro-life views, can you commit to us to make sure that the federal exchanges that offer that is clearly identified and so people can understand if they are going to buy a policy that has abortion coverage or not? because right now, you cannot make that determination.

>> sir, i don't know. i know exactly the issue you're talking about. i will check and make sure that that is clearly identifiable. >> here's our request. can you provide for the committee the list of insurers in the federal exchange who do not offer as part of their package abortion coverage? >> i think we can do that, sir. >> well, you should be able to do it. >> i just said. >> no, you said, if we can do it. >> i think we can do that. >> i think or i know? >> sir, i can't tell you what i don't know firmly right now. i know that is the plan. i will get that information to you. >> gentleman's time is expired. chair recognizes mr. rangel from new york. >> thank you, mr. chairman, mad madame secretary, i appreciate

your taking time to come here today to answer questions about the affordable care act. this reminds me a story of when i was a little boy, the story of chicken little, who ran around yelling, the sky is falling, the sky is falling. but unlike chicken little, my republican colleagues are actually rooting for the sky to fall. republicans are holding this hearing today under the auspices of an investigative hearing, as if they want to get to the bottom of what went wrong with the website in order to help fix it, but i don't think, madam secretary, there's one person in this room that's naive enough to think the republicans want to see this law work. they voted over 40 times to repeal the law, they shutdown the government and threatened a default in order to stop it. they are rooting for failure. madam secretary, can you tell us what would be the impact on americans' health insurance if republicans had been successful in their efforts to defund or repeal the affordable care act?