expensive. i mean much more expensive because you're not just hiring a single employee. you're hiring an employee of a large firm in most cases. so more than half of all federal contracts right now go to a relatively small number -- >> and live now to capitol hill as the senate labor subcommittee on workplace safety holds a hearing on payroll fraud. >> this is a subcommittee hearing this morning which is a subcommittee of the health, education, labor and pensions committee, this subcommittee work is critically important. we're grateful that people would be here to hear the testimony. wanted to provide an opening statement. then, i'll turn to our ranking member for his statement or comment, and then i'll introduce the witnesses and then we'll take witness testimony. payroll fraud is a problem that

is cheating workers, employers and taxpayers through the loss of worker protections, the loss of business due to an uneven playing field and the loss of revenue. when an employee is wrongly classified as an independent contractor, that worker loses vital rights like payroll protections, workers' compensation, unemployment compensation and other basic safeguards. the vast majority of employers that follow the rules are placed at a significant disadvantage when competing against the businesses breaking the law and not paying employment taxes. lower cost for those breaking the rules means less business or those who follow the rules. this places downward pressure on wages paid to workers and leads to other problems as well. taxpayers are also shortchanged to the loss of revenue by

federal and state governments. independent contractors serve a valuable role in our economy. and there's no intent on my part, nor anyone advocating the legislation we'll talk abouting today to use an overly broad brush to point fingers at companies that are following the law or pointing fingers at law-abiding independent contractors. while there are employers that might mistakenly identify monday night on c-span. the intentional misclassification is a widespread occurrence and a problem that must be addressed. a june, 2013, treasury department inspector general for tax administration report stated in part -- "the misclassification of employees as independent contractors is a nationwide issue, affecting

millions of workers that continues to grow and contribute to the tax gap." so said the inspector general for treasury. employers wrongly classified -- employers wrongly -- employees, i should say, wrongly classified as independent contractors do not enjoy the same worker protections. a 2009 g.a.o. report cites the example of, "a construction worker who fell three stories, was severely injured and incurred hospital expenses of over $10,000 related to the injury. because the worker was misclassified as an independent contractor, his employer did not provide workers' compensation coverage for the employee." according to the g.a.o. while some progress has been made at the federal and state level to combat payroll fraud,

much more needs to be done. more tools and more enforcement are needed to stop the intentional misclassification of workers. that's why i intended to introduce legislation to hold accountable employers and to give greater scrutiny to employees and their families. with my colleagues, chairman tom harkin, chairman of the health education, pensions subcommittee, share odd brown of ohio, i'll introduce the payroll protection act of 2013, which will protect workers of being misclassified of independent contractors, thereby ensuring safeguards of fair labor standards, health and safety protections and unemployment and workers' compensation benefits. the act would also prohibit employers from using misclassification to avoid paying their fair share of taxes. this is not a new problem, as i mentioned before. in 1984, the internal revenue

service found that 3.4 million employees were misclassified as independent contractors. at that time, this cost taxpayers $1.6 billion in income taxes, unemployment taxes, social security taxes and medicare taxes. that's 19 years ago. that report 19 years ago found that 15% of employers had misclassified employees. a new review is being undertaken. unfortunately, we will not see the results of that new review for some time. a 2009 treasury inspector general's report on misclassification acknowledged the lack of comprehensive new information while saying that the loss revenue would be "markedly higher than the $1.6 billion," of course, referring then to the 1984 i.r.s. report. why would an employer intentionally commit payroll

fraud? i think that's an important question to ask. a june report, again, by the inspector general at treasury, summarizes the reason as follows, "the i.r.s. estimates that employers misclassify millions of workers as independent contractors instead of employees. the misclassifications allow employers to avoid paying a significant amount of money in employment taxes which adversely affects employees and tax administration. on average, an employer can ave approximately $3,710 per worker per year in employment taxes on an individual -- i should say -- on an annual average salary of $43,700, an income paid per employee when the employer misclassifies a workers as an independent contractors." that's all quoted from the inspector general.

there's a clear financial ncentive for bad actors, not all. we're talking about bad actors here, but there is an incentive for those actors to defraud taxpayers. this has a clear impact on federal and state taxpayers and obviously on the so-called tax gap. i'm also a member, as senator akson is, of the finance committee, but we will not spend much time on the tax issue today. i'll note that my friend and former health, education, labor, pension subcommittee member, brown, will introduce legislation dealing with the tax issue that i will support and co-sponsor. and finally, an aspect of the financial incentive for fraud that we will discuss is the impact on the overwhelming number of businesses that play by the rules and do the right thing. put simply, law-abiding businesses are put at a disadvantage when they bid against an unscrupulous $3,710 n that is paying

less per employee per year in employment taxes. so i look forward to a productive process here at the hearing to target the bad actors who are hurting workers and hurting businesses. i'd also like to add for the record -- i'll introduce for the record a report entitled "campaign for quality construction." it's a report dated today and this statement will be admitted as part of the record. so now i'll turn to our ranking member, senator isakson. >> well, thank you, senator casey. in is an important subject and glad to participate in the hearing with you. want to compliment you on the differentiation and the closing paragraph to talk about people who play by the rules because there are rules in the i.r.s. tax code, the labor laws of the united states of america that clearly identify what is a

legal and independent contractor by designation, and we all know what they are. we're focusing on the people who are intentionally disobeying those laws and those standards, not the people who are willfully obeying by those laws. i was one of them. i ran a company with -- for 22 years that had 800 independent contractors and 200 employees. almost every one of my independent contractors was a second career or a divorced woman because there were very few job opportunities for them in that career. i had a real estate brokerage company. by working as an independent contractor they had flexible hours so they can pick up their kids from school, be sure dinner was propaired, work some days, work other days. they would do things if they were an employee status. the independent contractor status fits the situation and the circumstance. onically, our witness, mr.

mackrell had not met. this was not a preplanned plug. when i was asking him about his delivery service, last mile delivery service, if you will, last christmas i ordered my wife 80's christmas present from a company in new jersey. it was delivered to my house by a last mile trucking delivery system who on his truck had everything from my wife's present to probably other hundred wives' presents delivering each one individually, something somebody for an employee could not do from new jersey to atlanta. so there are perfectly good for independent contractor status to suggest and perfectly good companies around obeying by those laws and producing employment and an opportunity for america's workers. i think it's clear we need to make a difference of intentional and not intentionally and those playing by the rules and those who are not. i have letters to introduce to the record for the independent contractor status from the following organizations.

the national association of home builders, james mack, the president of the private association of america, stan kirby, the president and c.e.o. of american society of travel agents, the american trucking association, lisa van kirsten, the c.e.o. of mystery researchers and the executive director to promode independent entrepreneurs. with that i look forward to the testimony from our witnesses and look forward for the opportunity to co-chair with you today. >> thank you. what i'll do is provide an overview of the backgrounds of our witnesses that won't be complete but they'll be given introduction for each and then mr. anderson, we'll start with you and we'll go from my left to my left to right. first of all, matt anderson, who is joining us today from the state of michigan. we're grateful you're here. has his own experience of being injured on the job and the real and lasting impact misclassification can have on a family. mr. anderson, we're grateful

you're here today and we'll start with you in a couple moments. daniel odom is chief operating officer of odom construction in tennessee and has firsthand experience as a victim of unfair competition. odom construction is primarily n interior systems contractor. in good times, mr. odom has about 2,000 -- 200 employees and has bid and performed construction work in a number of states. mr. odom, we thank you for being here. cathy ruckelshaus is from the national employment law project, nelp, will talk about payroll fraud. she joined there in 1995 after working for the employment law center in san francisco. for over 20 years she's litigated and advocated for policy reforms, providing workplace rights of immigrant and nonstandard workers, enforcement of wage and hour and work force laws and anti-discrimination in family

and medical leave laws. we're grateful that cathy is here, testified in 2010 as well. and finally, we'll hear from chris mackrell, president and c.o.o. of custom courier solutions based in rochester, new york, who i understand has an office in my hometown of scranton. we appreciate that. senator isakson mentioned the discussion you had today. custom courier solutions is a full service transportation organization based in sarasota springs, new york. it provides a full range of logic albio sires services to the less than 24-hour delivery market. so we'll start with you, mr. anderson, and then we'll go to mr. odom and others. thank you very much. >> chairman casey, ranking member isakson, and members of the subcommittee, my name is matthew anderson. i'm a resident of st. clair county in the state of michigan

where i live with my wife and two wonderful children. ank you for this opportunity to speak with you today about how payroll fraud has harmed my family and thousands of other families across this country. currently, i worked for a construction company but previously i was a working carpenter. i made cabinets, installed interior trim, lay crown molding. my employer was rush construction services, incorporated. rush had a contract with the union -- the carpenters union and they paid me an hourly wage, health and pension benefits. there was training and daily instructions. i was supplied with building materials, power tools and other construction equipment. when i made mistakes our didn't meet production quotas, i got a tongue lashing. rush deducted income taxes. they paid employment taxes and

they paid unemployment contributions. they paid time and a half for overtime and they provided me with workers' compensation protection. in other words, i and my fellow workers were employees. that is how it was for six years, but things changed for the worse. we were told the recession cut into rush's bottom line and they were having problems competing to get jobs. mr. marty sidele was the owner at rush, mr. dave morocco was his right-hand man. they told us they wanted to switch over to another company they jointly owned, dave and marty, incorporated, d.m.i. we were given a choice, work for d.m.i. as independent contractors or don't work at all. my fellow workers and i had families to support. we had seen how bad the economy was so we went along with it.

. stidel and mr. morocco d.b.a., doing business as. i passed these instructions on to my wife and she did it. i was not incorporated. i didn't have business cards. i never operated a business. still, the d.b.a. would come back to haunt me because d.b.i. knew what they were doing. d.m.i.'s official address was mr. morocco's house. the actual business office was still rush's. i worked for d.m.i. for 2 1/2 years. there was training, daily instructions. i was supplied with building materials, power tools and other construction materials. when i made mistakes or didn't meet production quotas, i received a tongue lashing. so i was still treated the same

as before, but instead of being an employee and receiving a w-2 at the end of the year, i received a 1099 form. there were no more deductions for my pay. i paid my portion of employment taxes and i paid b.m.i.'s as well. there were -- d.m.i.'s as well. there were no more health and pension benefits and we didn't get time and a half for overtime. then, february 9, 2011, my life changed forever. my left hand slipped into a table saw, severing my ring finger and severely damaging three others. i was rushed to the hospital for emergency surgery for them to try to save my hand. while i was at the hospital, i was told that my medical bills would not be covered because i was an independent contractor. my medical treatment was long and painful. so far i've had eight surgeries and still need one more.

the damage that was so bad they had to take bones from my wrist and hip and the doctors also needed to take bones from a cadaver to do the reconstruction. during this time i couldn't work and my medical bills piled up and in a short time, they are in the range of $100,000. this is more than i and my wife make in an entire year. i filed a workman's compensation claim. d.m.i. claimed i was an independent contractor and they refused to pay. i was pressured to settle with d.m.i. and their insurance carrier. in the end, my family and i were left with our credit ruined and still owed $25,000 in medical bills. this has been a nightmare for my family. a few years ago my family and i felt secure we were a

middle-class family paying our bills, paying by the rules and living a comfortable life. now we live paycheck to paycheck just to make ends meet. i struggle to hold down a job and i struggle to pay my medical bills, and in the meantime, d.m.i. continues to bid and get work and make money . i work now as an estimator and i see firsthand how companies like d.m.i., who force their employees to become independent contractors, then they underbid law-abiding companies who pay their taxes and protect their workers. i'm here today to tell my story about what happened to my family so it doesn't happen to any other families. i respectfully urge you to end this unfair practice that has harmed my family and thousands of other families across this

country. thank you. >> thank you, mr. anderson. appreciate your testimony. mr. odom. >> chairman casey, rain isakson and -- ranking member isakson and members, i welcome the pportunity to talk about how payroll fraud or misclassification is crippling the construction industry. this is a great passion i'm testifying here today against this practice. odom construction is a family-owned and run company purchased by my father in 1982. we're primarily an interior systems contractor, meaning we car pen tree, dry wall, acusical ceilings. almost everything we do is self-performed. we are based in knoxville, tennessee, and we have offices in kentucky and austin, texas. we have a couple hundred employees and in the last year we worked on projects in tennessee, virginia, kentucky,

georgia, alabama, texas, michigan, louisiana and florida. so we have seen payroll fraud in a lot of places. payroll fraud happens when an employee is called an independent contractor and is sent a 1099 firms. employees are paid off the book, something that is extremely common in the construction industry. in our business it's not hard to figure out who is an employee when you supply building materials, training and daily construction and set hours of work, they are a employee. benefits can be worth the risk. payroll fraud is a hammer used to undermine law abiding employees by avoiding workers' compensation premiums and overtime. it allows their competition to bid their labor costs 10% to 30% lower than those who play by the rules. in construction, the value of labor can be 50% of a total project. so the cheaters compete at a level that no law-abiding contractor can reasonably touch by -- even by better buyout of materials or training or

productivity. also, even when caught, the cheaters often prosper. let me give you an example. we frequently find ourselves in competition with the contractors some use payroll fraud tactics through brokers that supply labor. the tennessee department of labor collected over 61,000 dollars in unpaid unemployment contribution and interest from that contractor for three or more projects spanning many years. some of those projects were publicly financed. one of those projects, a new student housing for secondary education center in tennessee, our bid was close to $1 million. the usual markup for a bid or profit and overhead to cover office salaries and expenses is around 15%. when you consider markup on hat one job at $150,000, the $61,000 delint -- delinquency project is also les than half the markup for just this one project alone. the payment was a fine that

took a small bite out an overall profit margin. it was just the cost of doing business. there were no limits placed on this contractor bidding future work. we have competed against them many times ever since and in most cases they beat us. many states have begun the hard work of eliminating payroll fraud from the construction tennessee. tennessee enacted new law this year with business support to fight back against workers' compensation premium fraud. but it will take sensible comprehensive action by the federal government to put this issue to bed for a number of reasons. not all states understand the issue. some do understand and they have enacted new laws, but enforcement is still uneven. the federal government can look at the various state laws, find out what is working and what isn't, make enforcement plans and pass legislation that is enforceable across all states. one of the worst offenders we know is based out of georgia but regularly priced his work

in tennessee and elsewhere. it uses labor brokers that is sometimes based out of florida so in the end there are three states involved on a single project for just this one contractor. interstate regulation is a federal function and it applies to this problem. u.s. attorneys could help by prosecuting egregious cross-border offenders. also, the federal government already has everify in place and it, too, can be part of the sensible solution. the bad news for us is violating the law has become an established business plan. today, breaking the law fueled by reduced opportunities fueled by the recession creates the danger of phasing out law-abiding businesses until there is no one left except the bad operators. this has trade people leaving to seek employment in areas that haven't been beaten in the ground by bad operators. payroll fraud is shutting down a whole industry of contractors that believe in building middle class jobs and making a reasonable profit.

businesses like ours deserve your protection. thank you. >> thanks very much, mr. odom. ms. ruckelshaus. >> thank you, members of the subcommittee. i appreciate the opportunity to testify today on the importance of the subject as payroll fraud. i'm general council of the national employment law project . we're a nonprofit that promotes good jobs and access and opportunities for work. it's been a little over three years since i appeared before the committee to talk about independent contractor misclassification and i'm disheartened to say that the problems have exacerbated despite some state activity to combat the problems and the problems call for federal leadership and activity. at nelp we see low-wage workers in our economy's growth sectors being forced to sign contracts saying they're an independent contractor as a condition of

getting a job. ey also -- we also see employers changing the status of their workers from employee into independent contractor without any change in the underlying relationships at work. we also see employers call their workers franchisees of, one, in the janitorial industry. and we see workers being maid off the books. all of these practices, unfortunately, have been on the rise, especially in perd periods of high unemployment when workers are willing to take a job almost under any circumstance. these janitors, home care workers, construction workers, cable installers and even restaurant servers are not running their own business by any definition. they want to work and they too often accept whatever arrangement gets them a job. s with same occupation high payroll fraud suffer from high violations of other workplace laws. so it means these jobs are not

paying well and they suffer high rates of health and safety violations, among other things. as senator casey mentioned, this hurts not only the workers but it also hurts law-abiding employers and it hurts our government's coffers. i'll talk about that in a little bit. today, i'm going to briefly describe payroll fraud and its impacts. it's the impact on state and federal government coffers and on law-abiding employers. i'll talk a little bit at the the bout why i think payroll fraud protection act is an important first step to combat this problem. as senator isakson mentioned, every day employers legitimately contract with other independent businesses. typically to perform jobs that the contractor performs for a variety of customers. these routine practices are not the subject of payroll fraud reforms. genuine independent contractors constitute a small proportion

of the american work force because by definition an independent contractor is in business for him or herself. what's happening today is that companies have become increasingly embolden in the way they seeks to skirt basic labor standards. insurance and tax laws that apply to employers. we've heard about some of the practices today. the problem of workers being required to sign boiler plate contracts, attesting to their independent contractor status is especially galling, even when the functional relationships do not reflect true independence. these practices are called payroll fraud because they are intentional and they're aimed at evading the law. legitimate business-to-business transactions are not payroll fraud because true independent contractors bring a specialized skill. they typically investigate a capital in their business against which they can earn a profit and they can pass on

increased costs to their customers, as any business does, like higher gas prices or an increase in the cost of safety equipment. so companies orchestrate these relationships to avoid labor and employment protections. and because they can underbid competitors, as we've heard. so how prevalent is this? in my testimony, i detail that it's quite prevalent. the 2,000 u.s. department of labor -- the 2000 u.s. department of labor study found 30% of employers misclassify their workers. state studies have shown percentages as high as 47% of employers. it rises during periods of high unemployment. the coffers -- the cost to the states and the federal government are literally in the billions of dollars. they're staggering and it's typically unemployment insurance, workers' comp, income tax and payroll taxes.

there has been state activity across a wide variety of states, delaware, maryland, minnesota, nebraska, new mexico, new york, pennsylvania, wisconsin have construction-specific laws. over 20 states have established task over 20 states have established task forces to study the problem. and the last -- the interesting thing is that these state task forces and the u.s. department of labor report that most of the complaints that come into them come from competitors. not from workers, but from competitors like mr. odom's business. so we need federal leadership and reform. the department of labor's task force has established some important first steps. the payroll fraud prevention act that senator kasey mentioned would provide important transparency for workers and employers about the status of workers and would enable workers to question that status if they

think it's incorrect. in addition, there is a fair playing field act that was introduced by senator kerry that would fix the tax code. i realize that's not the topic of this panel, but that would have a huge impact on narrowing the safe harbor that's currently enabling hundreds of thousands of businesses to take advantage of misclassifying their workers and then never having to repair or correct the mistake. this is causing, again, billions revenues of unpaid for the government. i appreciate the opportunity to testify today and i'm happy to answer your questions in the intervening period. thank you. >> thanks very much. >> chairman kasey, ranking member isaacson and the committee, i want to thank you both for affording me the opportunity to appear today. i have provided the committee with a written testimony of both my business and our industry, but i wanted to share with the

committee this afternoon my personal perspective, the important role independent contractors play in the economy. after graduating college in 1982, i found myself ready to start my career. as you may recall, the country suffered from tough economic times, not unsimilar to what the country is going through today. in my search for a job, i was presented with an opportunity to start my career as an independent contractor. currier or a small company in upstate new york. over the next three years i operated as an i.c., learning the skills necessary to succeed in the same-day delivery usiness. i find myself once again with the opportunity to operate my own small business. so in 2006, with a partner, i started custom courier solutions. c.c.f.'s first business opportunity was to operate as an independent contractor for a much larger courier company. for the first six months,

revenue from that single customer was what kept c.c.s. alive. over -- as time passed, we developed our own customer base. and as they say in saratoga springs, new york, we were off to the races. based on my experience gained as an i.c., we have built our company. our projected revenues is expected to exceed $22 million in 2013. we support a $6 million annual payroll. more importantly, our company created over $13 million in annual revenue for the independent contractors that worked for our organization. c.c.s. now operates in the northeast. we have offices in fairless hills in scranton, pennsylvania. we provide last-mile solutions for the medical and pharmaceutical industry, critical parts, industrial and auto supplies, banking, retail and home delivery. c.c.s. relies on the i.c.

business model to meet our customer needs. our 200-plus contractors and our 156 traditional employees work together to support the needs of our 150-plus customers. we have accomplished this despite one of the nation's toughest economic environments in decades. hinder the not entrepreneurial spirit and recognize the great potential and opportunity being an i.c. can provide. 30-year-old recent immigrant from africa, who in 2001 or 2011 started providing services to c.c.s. with a single van. today he has a fleet of three vehicles, is operating his own small business, and is living the american dream. his story and my story are not unique. members, c.c.s. is a member of the customized logistic and delivery association, the clda.

our association's focus is on the last mile of the world supply chain. my testimony today is submitted on behalf of clda's 425 members. as an industry with a long history of reliance on the i.c. for our mutual success, we are keenly aware of the need to properly classify individuals. clda members are encouraged to participate in best practices to determine class of course -- classification. we take these decisions seriously. at c.c.s. we ask every potential i.c. to complete a questionnaire that details their rights, expectations of being an i.c., including those questions relate to the requirements that they file both state and federal taxes. when we engage in i.c., we execute a written contract. we issue them 1099 forms for all services provided. we require them to provide us with proof of insurance for both themselves and their vehicles.

previous legislation that's focused on the rights of the misclassified worker but has never extended to the rights of the individuals who choose to operate as independent contractors. like don wolf, a 70-year-old retiree in rochester, new york, who has been an i.c. since 1995. as don says, i get to set my own schedule, work when i want, and meet the needs of my individual needs and the energy levels that allow me to work. or kathy woods, a 52-year-old mother from scranton, pennsylvania, who has been an i.c. for us a little over a year. as kathy says, i have finally found a way to contribute to my family's financial well-being while at the same time not having to give up the ability to participate in my family's activities. in closing i would like to ask, as you consider legislation, you look at the full picture. include considerations for those who choose to be independent contractors. tens of thousands of people every day choose to operate as

an independent contractor in pursuit of the american dream. the right to do so must also be protected. chairman kasey, ranking member isaacson, i thank you for your time and consideration. >> thank you, mr. mackrell. we're going to go in a different order. i'm going to switch questioning order with senator franken. he'll go ahead of me. >> thank you, mr. chairman. thank you for this very important hearing. thank you, all of you, for your testimony. i was just struck, mr. anderson, with mr. mackrell's description of independent contractors that work with his business and to his describing them as entrepreneurial and having insurance through their vehicles and that kind of thing. you were in your testimony, you did the exactly same thing. right? nothing changed other than your

have told that either you to accept being an independent contractor or, quote, don't work at all. >> correct. >> i think that's a big difference. i mean, anyone acknowledge that there isn't a difference there? ok. testified to the fact that he's competing with ompanies that do exactly that. now, mr. odom, you testified that -- ok, you get caught, it's kind of the cost of doing business. you get a little bit of a fine that doesn't reflect anything near the advantage that you get from doing this practice which is unethical and illegal.

did you -- was there any indication, mr. anderson, that your employer thought that what they were doing was against the law or did you believe the employer was at all concerned about facing penalties? >> i don't believe they're afraid of facing the penalties. like mr. odom said. it's part of the cost. they're willing to take that risk. >> ok. i think it's important, ms. ruckle hawes talked -- rackle hawes talked about, this becomes widely used practice and employers are under pressure. mr. odom, i have to say, i commend you for your sticking with your ethical way of doing business during the very difficult times. and commend you for that. but this is very common now, you said you testified a few years ago and now it's more common.

>> can you tell us a little bit about what happens during a recession and also can you draw a distinction here between, you know, legitimate uses of independent contractors, and i don't know much about your business, mr. mackrell, i understand what it is. it's making those deliveries on the same day like an or began transplant delivery -- or gaann transplant delivery or something -- organ transplant delivery or something like that. but there's a clear distinction here, is there not? >> there is. the question really is, is the person running a business or not. or running his or her own business. if you think about what that means, it means you have a special idse skill, you invest some -- specialized skill, you invest some capital. you can decide what you're going to do. you're not integrated into somebody else's business and doing their bidding and doing construction work or janitorial work. the workers we see, the low-income workers, under no definition are they running

their own business. i mean, restaurant servers is hard to imagine how they could be called independent contractors and they are. so, in a recession, and when the unemployment rate is high, as we've seen in the last several years, it is exacerbated and we've gotten a lot more calls, we've been involved in a lot more enforcement actions around the country because the workers have no bargaining power. they'll take a job and they need a job. so if they're told that the arrangement is changing on paper, they don't have much of a choice. they take it because they need the job. >> you mentioned that -- and mr. odom, you do work in several states, and there have been efforts by states, including minnesota, to get a handle on this. but what is the -- to both of you -- the importance of federal legislation to address this? >> in our experience, the

importance of the federal involvement here as opposed to state level is because you have, as i mentioned in my testimony, multiple -- a contractor can be touching several different states within a given project. he can be domiciled in georgia, installing a project in tennessee with labor brokers that are sending labor out of florida. so there's some issue of jurisdiction there that, having clear-cut enforcement across at the federal level would help with. >> there's also a patchwork of state laws, less than half have enacted laws that pertain in any way to independent contractor abuses. and most of them pertain only to construction because that's the poster child of where the problems lie. >> right. >> it's very patchwork. and then enforcement, as senator casey mentioned earlier, is very spotty because of the lack of resources. so it's not enough. we need federal oversight in leadership to really get a

handle on the problem. >> ok. my time is up. but i want to thank all of the witnesses for their testimony. thank you, mr. chairman. >> thank you, senator franken. senator isaacson. >> thank you, mr. chairman. thanks to all the witnesses. ms. ruckelshaus, you made a statement to the i.r.s. code. is that the 10-point test to establish whether or not an independent contractor is truly independent or not? >> no. i was referring, senator, to the safe harbor at section 530 of the internal revenue act. t's at 26, u.s.c., 7436. and that describes what, under the internal revenue code, which again is a 20 factor test, that may be what you're referring to. but it prohibits that safe harbor, prohibits the i.r.s. from shoog any guidance on the subject at all for payroll fraud. it also permits employers to

evade any kind of liability for any back problems. so if the i.r.s. says you're misclassifying your employees and you need to change it, there's no ability to collect penalties or any damages there. and an employer can get the safe harbor if it says that most of the other employers in my business do this, have this practice. >> excusemy for cutting you off, my time will be short. the reason i mention this is my recollection, the company i ran was covered by that safe harbor. and it defined the definition in the parameters by which you could comply with the federal law and i.r.s. was the enforcement agent in terms of that. and that is true today. that it can be -- a company can be challenged by anybody and it can be tested under the i.r.s. code. is that not correct? >> that's correct, sir. >> how often does that happen? >> that's a good question. there's very little data on how often that happens. it is typically competitors who come in and complain because workers aren't protected if they come to complain to the i.r.s.

so i don't have data on how often that happens. >> my point is, when you refer to doing away with the safe harbor, or amending the safe harbor, you're talking about the provisions that allow people to operate as independent contractors legitimately. >> no. that's not what would happen. the proposed law that senator kerry had introduced would have narrowed the ability for employers to claim the same haur -- safe harbor and would have permitted the i.r.s. to issue guidance, to give guidance to mployers around the country. >> that's my point. we need to be careful of the definition. that's the reason i wanted to bring up that. mr. mackrell, thank you very much for being here. you talked about workers enjoying the flexibility that comes with an independent contractor status. and can you expand on that, particularly what would happen to these workers if that flexibility went away? >> in our situation and like many people who work in our industry, the independent

contractors that work for us have chosen this style of life -- way to earn a living because they need a flexible, variable schedule. they want to work when they want to work. they don't want to be told when to come to work, what time they need to be to work, whether they work, which rates they need to charge. so if we were forced to move into an employee-type of basis, i believe that we would probably lose probably 60% to 70% of our work force. they would move on to other things. by the very nature of the services that they provide to us, they are looking for flexibility and the ability to operate their own business. >> do you know out of curiosity, how main of your contractors might actually be multiple contractors for different businesses think? mean, not just in the delivery business, but in other types of professions? >> all i can really speak about is obviously in our delivery business. i would say about 35% to 40% of our i.c.'s provide services to other similar transportation

companies. >> any other second-career-type businesses other than transportation? >> not that i can comment on, no. >> not that you know of. i'm sorry you had difficulty with a georgia company. i was paying close attention in your testimony. i would only suggest they passed a pretty strong law in georgia with regard to labor brokers, verification of employment and legality and in the united states and in georgia. i would urge you to take a look at that. those violations probably took place in tennessee so georgia laws might not be applicable but georgia's tried to address that problem. but i'm sorry you had the problem with georgia's -- georgians coming across the line into tennessee and competing with you. mr. anderson, thank you for your willing to -- your willingness to come and testify. i think it's very important we provide a way to see to it that people's rights are protected. when somebody's injured undulyy like you are because someone made a voluntary shift for a convenience for their sake but certainly inconvenience for yours, we pay close attention to

that. so thank you for your testimony and for being here today. thank you, mr. chairman. >> thank you, senator. i wanted to start, mr. odom, with a couple of questions for you. just by way of preface, this is a place and this is an institution, the senate and the house, the congress overall, where you often have conflict by way of policy or otherwise between employers and employees on issues. sometimes taxpayers feel that heir concerns aren't being heard. i have to say that there are very few areas of policy or maybe in this case a problem that we're prying to rectify ordeal with -- that we're trying to rectify or deal with where if we get this right we will have benefited all three, right? employees, workers would be better off. companies and employers will be better off. and certainly taxpayers will. so that's pretty rare and i just

mention that by way of preface. mr. odom, i want to ask you about the -- when you're competing against firms that are engaged in misclassification and again i'll say for the record these are the ones who are violating the rule, violating the law, not all employers and frankly not even most, but we have to recognize that there's a problem here. but when you're competing against those that aren't playing by the rules, those competitors, it's almost hard to call them competitors when they have a 20% head start or whatever the exact percentage is, if we could ascertain that, what types of projects are you talking about? what's the common scenario in your work? >> we primarily focus our efforts in the commercial industry. so we do a lot of assisted living-type facilities, multifamily housing. we do a lot of public works. so new plgs on school campuses,

university campuses, hospitals as well. we do that kind of work. so your larger-scale commercial is where we focus most of our efforts. >> can you walk us through the process? i mean, i know everyone in the room by now understands the basic problem but can you walk us through kind of either a specific experience or the common set of facts in terms of how you confront this problem? >> where we see it is on the results on bid day is where it's first obvious. often times you'll have a group of prices of people such as ourselves that are on a level playing field, that are trying to do things the right way. we'll be a percentage or two apart from each other on bid day and then you'll have a separate group of pricing down below that 15%, 20%,, also grouped together.

it's pretty obvious. and then we get on to probablies as well. where we're performing a certain scope of work and then additional scopes of work are being performed by companies that are handling their business in that way. and so we see it on the ground level as well. >> in terms of your direct experience, the differential between the bids, between you and say a firm that isn't playing by the rules, can be in that range of 10% to 30%, is that accurate? >> yes. >> i want to ask you as well about senator isakson mentioned this concept of labor brokerage. can you tell us what you know about that? about what that means? sort of or broker is the intermediary, an offending contractor will use to go and seek out a collection of guys that can be brought in under the 1099. so if i'm a contractor wanting to operate in that way, i would approach x, y, z labor which operates as a business and say i

need 25 carpenters next monday. and then he assembles those carpenter and sends them to the job site. and that's a rather new player in this or has that been part of the dynamic for a while? >> it's been part of the dynamic for a while. it just seems to be more prevalent because there are fewer opportunities. in the past, you know when the economy was really hopping and construction, you miss one, you lose one to these type of operators on bid day, you go and bid the next 25 that are on your bid schedule. because there are so many opportunities. now the opportunities are much fewer. so it's a lot more noticeable. whether it's more prevalent, i'm not sure. it's always been there. it's been there since i've been in the office which would be mid 1990's in our neck of the woods. >> i'll come back to you on a couple of other things. i wanted to ask you about the state efforts here.

obviously i know often in this town when there's a problem, some people think that the solution is always a federal law. and understand the concerns about that. and i know there's not people being very plight in the room, some probably want to -- polite in the room, some probably want to stand up and shout and say yeah. but there are some problems that we have to deal with on a more comprehensive way across the nation, because as you described, i think a patchwork sometimes doesn't work. and that's -- look, that will be an area of debate and we can debate that. i think there's good intentions on both sides of that. but to the extent that there is activity and there's been substantial amount of activity on the state level, i guess now, both tennessee and texas have enacted laws targeting misclassification. but i wanted to ask you, is action at the state level sufficient, even if you had more of it? let's say for purposes of argument, you had more of it and they were in the area of reform

that you would advocate, where do you see it now, where -- how do you compare what could be done or is being done at the state level with what should be done federally if you believe that there should be federal action? >> yes, my office has been tracking this state legislation since it's really started to pick up around 2005. and there was an uptick in quite a bit of activity since last year. it has begun to dwindle, 2011, 2012. the activity has dipped. and there's been more defensive actions by business who want to cheat and who want -- who think the laws are not good. so we've actually been engaged in a lot of fight back and some of the laws have been weakened. the new laws that have been passed have been weakened. most of them continue to cover construction. while that's a big sector that has problems, there's a lot of other seblingters like the ones i mentioned that -- sectsers like the ones i mentioned that aren't covered by these laws so it's very incomplete and because

the task force is -- task forces and commissions often lack resources, the ebbs and flows of the enforcement are very striking. it's my opinion that we do need federal leadership on this. >> i will come back to you because i'm over time. i want to get back to senator isakson. >> mr. odom, everybody at your construction company is an employee of the company? >> yes, sir. , when you build -- bid a job a project or a multifamily project, everybody that contributes to the construction of that project is an employee? >> yes. for our scope of work, yes, sir. >> say what that means? >> well, we're going in, when we price a dormitory, we're pricing the framing, the drywall, accuse cal ceiling, plastering. we don't do plumbing, electrical work, other scopes of work that would be bid by other subcontractors. but everything that is in our scope of work is performed by an

employee. my point. most of those subcontractors would more than likely be independent contractors rather than employees, is that correct? >> i'm not sure. of the other subcontracters? >> the ones you refer to that you don't cover their scope of business. that's not a trick question. i'm not trying to pose a trick question. my point is, there are an awful lot of people who are independent contractor status like mr. mackrell who may deliver a specialized fixture to one of those projects that you hire to put in there, is going to install. he's an independent contractor delivering the specialty fixture and the electrician is an independent contractor who bid the part of the job that you don't do. that's the point i'm making. >> yes, sir. that would be true. >> because there are an awful lot of small -- you know, the national association of homebuilders said 75% of homebuilders -- what was it? 85% of homebuilders built 25 or fewer homes and 75% built 10 or fewer homes. so there are a lot of small operators that operate as

contractors. that contract with independent contractors and put them together to end up building their end product. is that not correct? >> yes. >> you wouldn't want to do away with that, would you? >> no. >> what you want to make sure is that the master contractor that performs the services you provide, which is the main structural service in terms of construction is competing with you on a level playing field, is that right? >> yect -- correct. >> ok. mr. mackrell, tell me more about your typical independent contractor. you have a typical one or are they across the board? >> our typical independent contractor would be someone who has come to us, either through word of mouth, advertisement that we have, or just because they've been working in the industry. they offer our services to us, they -- we give them a scope of work that they review. they submit pricing to us. we come to an agreement. we sign a contract. we exchange obviously insurance and other information. and they begin to provide services to us.

>> could you tell me approximately, i realize this will be an estimate, what percentage of truckers in the united states of america are operating as independent contractors? >> i really wouldn't have the ability -- in our industry, as it relates to truckers, but in our industry there's an estimated 5,000 courier companies in the u.s. our industry surveys show that 85% of those companies use some form of independent contractors to operate their business. >> and that's the primary last-mile delivery service. which the big company really can't meet with the same standards that they have to meet, is that correct? >> yes. >> that's an important -- very important thing to understand in this whole battle. because the fact that i ran a company that had independent contractors doesn't mean i'm on the other side of this issue from bob but do i think we have to have a balanced advocacy on behalf of america's needs. one of the things we've acknowledged is that some of the unintended consequences of government regulation or of the economy, one two of the, or both in some case have forced people to do things we'd rather they not do like go toon independent contractor status or go to a

30-hour workweek or something like that. we have to be conscious of what we're talking about when we talk about these very critical issues because no one wants to sanction illegal or plain wrong practices on the part of workers or on the part of the companies on their workers. but we also want to make sure we have -- protect the opportunity for workers to have jobs in america in a very challenging time. thank you, mr. chairman. >> thank you, senator isakson. a anted to get back to question which i don't think you have an answer for, maybe you do but i doubt it because i haven't seen an overall number. but it's a question of how many businesses we're talking about here. i was struck by what mr. mackrell said in part nent part in his testimony. at the end he talked about the cdla urging all of its members to use industry-best practices in making determinations about independent contractor status

and all of that. that's what we want to see more of, obviously, and we appreciate that they're doing that. but you probably can't answer the question about the number of businesses that are engaged in this or even maybe a ballpark figure. but did you in your testimony, m looking at your testimony, on page four, you had a broken -- you had it broken down into two sections of lost revenue. you have a federal revenue section and you had a state revenue section. this one, if could you just walk through some of that, to the extent that we have data, even though i always believe that data's important, numbers are relevant, but i think stories like mr. anderson's and others are more compelling because they tell us about what happened to one person, one family, one employer, one community. but can you -- walk through some of the more significant federal revenue losses here. >> yes. as you mentioned earlier,

senator, the data is only old and there is a u.s. department of labor survey that's being undertaken right now which should update, at least on terms of the magnitude of the problem. the general accountability office in 2009 estimated that these independent contractor uses cost federal revenues $2.72 billion. in just one year. in 2006. the congressional research service estimated that a modification to the i.r.s. safe harbor rule would save $8.7 billion from 2012 to 2021. so that's mostly on the income side. the income tax side. >> that's a nine-year number. >> right. $8.7 billion. the state losses are typically used -- they're calculated using unemployment insurance losses

and workers comp. those are the sources of data that the states use. california is the most recent one in 2013. a estimated that there was $236 million loss or loss just in one year in california to its unemployment revenues. $1.4 billion. in losses. and massachusetts found a combination of unemployment insurance, $15.4 million in one year loss and $13 million in the unreported earnings. so, adding up -- it's quite a magnitude. the federal estimates vary a lot and depend on which data set the agency's looking at. >> appreciate that. mr. anderson, i didn't have a chance to ask you a question or

two about your own situation. but i was struck by -- in your testimony, the reference you made to -- i picked up on that phrase tongue lashing meaning -- this is what i interpreted and see if this makes sense to you -- when you're an employee there's, to use a term of art so to speak, there's a degree of control that someone has, that employer has over that employee and can direct them and give them a tongue lashing when they're not doing good work. whether it was that aspect of your relationship with your employer and then the -- however you described the next entity that you were working with, whether it was tongue lashing or other aspects of your relationship, that didn't change very much from one status to the other, is that correct? >> correct.

it didn't change at all. >> the only thing that really changed in your case, and know this is kind of a leading question, but it's important to validate it. the only thing that changed is you had a lot less protection and therefore late heir to pay a re-- later had to pay a severe penalty for that protection. >> yes. >> i wanted to ask you as well, from your own experience, now, taken from your testimony, you didn't ask to be an independent contractor, you felt almost compelled to because of your own circumstances and because the employer in that circumstance was kind of giving you not much of a choice, is that correct? >> correct. >> i realize this isn't the norm, but it does happen. that's why your story's so important. and you felt in order to -- that you had to do that in order to keep your job and have some income for your family. >> that's the way they put it to us. >> and i wanted to kind of

probably out from your own story, if you were -- you've obviously done all kinds of good work and carpentry being a big part of that, if someone came up to you today, a young person, even younger than yourself, came up to you today and said, i'm thinking about a similar career, what would you -- what advice would you give them in terms of this aspect of your work? >> i would tell them under no circumstances do something like that. put themselves in a vulnerable position like i put myself and my family. >> senator isakson, do you have any more? >> only that i appreciate the witnesseses' testimony today and i look forward to working with you, chairman casey, and others, to see to it that we make sure that people who are doing the wrong thing are held accountable but that we do not throw out those people that are doing it, playing by the rules and contracting to the great

development of the united states of america and our economy. thank you for calling the hearing. >> i want to thank senator isakson for bringing his own personal experience, as someone who has lived in the real world of business, not just the world of congress. i'd just put in a little commercial here for the payroll fraud prevention act, we don't have a chance to do this very often with a captive audience. i won't read the whole summary but as you read through even a summary of this legislation, i think it's, in a word, not just necessary or essential but really in a word reasonable. if you break it dunn down into kind of sections or -- if you break it down into kind of sections or subject areas, part of this, and in some ways i almost can't believe that we don't have an existing prohibition on misclassifying workers, but there's obviously aspects to this where if an employer were to misclassify a

worker, that would be a violation of the fair labor standards act. if there's any kind of, what i might call them intimidation, but really any efforts to discharge someone or discriminate against them based upon their opposition to any practice concerning their own classification, that would be a violation of the law. i wish that were in place now. it doesn't seem to make sense that it's not a violation presently. so there are penalties for this kind of activity and sanctions, civil penalties and others, and that's obvious and i know that gives some people real concern but i think it's essential that -- and again reasonable. but a lot of this as well, you look at the legislation, is about basic fundamental record keeping. you ought to have to tell the ployee and others that basic information about classification. it's not asking too much to say

someone is either an employee or an independent contractor. the employer should have to provide that that information. i believe that one measure of accountability is not just that kind of disclosure that kind of information to an employee, a worker, but also that those kinds of actions should be subject to audit, certainly at the state level or otherwise. so i think when you go through this, whether it's by way of disclosure and providing basic information, or whether it's the prohibitions and the sanctions which i believe should be in the law already, but are not, so we have to enact laws to do that, but i think it's reasonable and in light of the problem here and again, from -- whether it's from the employees' and the workers' perspective, whether it's from the perspective of those -- most of the folks doing this work, meaning the companies, the

businesses, the employers, from their own vantage point, they're in need of this kind of help because they're doing the right thing. and they're being underbid because someone else is cheating. and violating the law. and then last but not least, obviously, are taxpayers. they're being ripped off every day of the week. they're paying their taxes and someone else isn't. and we're all the worse for it. especially at a time when we have such fiscal challenges and tight budgets. so whether it's the employer, the employee or the taxpayer, i think it's important we pass legislation at the payroll fraud prevention act and i appreciate the opportunity to provide that commercial and, senator isakson has been great to work with on a whole range of issues and i'm grateful he's with us here today and to be with us at this hearing as our ranking member. i want to thank all of our witnesses for being here, for taking the time to develop your testimony, to bring your own

personal experiences to bear on this issue and we're certainly grateful. and with that, the subcommittee on employment and workplace safety hearing is adjourned. thank you. [captioning performed by national captioning institute] [captions copyright national cable satellite corp. 2013]

>> the u.s. house is in recess now but members will return at 5:00 eastern to begin debate on six bills with votes and

speeches scheduled for 6:30 eastern. later this week, debate and votes on a bill that allows health plans currently available on the individual market to continue in 2014 without americans being penalized under the health care law. also work on a bill aiming to reduce lawsuit abuse. follow live the -- follow the house live on c-span when members return. tomorrow house and senate negotiators meet to discuss the federal budget for this fiscal year which began october 1. it's the blueprint used. members are currently trying to find areas of compromise between the different budget resolutions passed between the house and senate. you can see that meeting live tomorrow at 10:00 a.m. eastern on c-span. coming up thursday, the senate banking committee will meet to hear testimony from janet yellen, president obama's choice to head the federal reserve. ms. yellen is the current vice chair of the federal reserve board of governors. she would replace ben bernanke who is stepping down after two terms. you can see that hearing live thursday starting at 10:00 a.m. eastern. it will also be on c-span3.

this weekend, book tv looks back at the life and death of our 35th president on the 50th anniversary of his assassination. beginning saturday at 1:30 p.m. eastern, with authors martin sadler, ira stall and others. plus an authors panel relives november 22, 1963. it's all part of book tv this weekend on c-span2. and don't forget, book tv's book club for november wants to know what kennedy books you're reading. post your thoughts in our book club chat room. >> from a young age, she loved to write. she would often create poems as gifts for her parents on christmas and birthdays. she would write a poem and illustrate it. we have two early examples here. from when she was about 10 years old. in the fall of 1950, she entered "vogue's" very well known writing contest and her winning

essays. one was a self-portrait and question three of the essay, who are three people in history you wish you had known. the first two she mentions a french poet and oscar wild, the author, in addition to that, a russian ballet. and in the early 1950's she was hired as the camera girl for "the washington times herald." one column we have here is prophetic because she interviews vice president nixon and senator kennedy who would bed a never air ises in the 1960 presidential campaign. as we know in her later life, the last part of her life, she was a very prolific editor of books in new york city, working with several different authors on books of several different topics. >> watch our program on first lady jacklin kennedy on our website or see it this weekend

at a special time, saturday at 10:00 p.m. eastern and sunday at noon on c-span. and our series continues live monday as we look at first lady lady bird johnson. earlier today at the state department, reporters received an update on iranian sanctions and how secretary of state john kerry feels about rolling them back. while a diplomatic path forward is being explored. here's more. >> let me just give you all an overview of kind of some of the .riefings that we've done secretary kerry had two hearings with leadership. he will be briefing the senate banking committee tomorrow in a closed session. he has been updating members of congress by phone while he traveled. this includes but is certainly not limited to, because these calls are ongoing, and as you all know, he spent 29 years in the senate and believes that consultation with congress is a vitally important aspect of

policymaking. he spoke with senators over the last week so many of these calls, he was making over the course of the weekend. undersecretary sherman has also given three briefings on the hill to house and senate leadership, as well as with the chairs and ranking members of the committees. and later this week we'll give another update to committee leadership as well. so we're very closely engaged with congress, these consultations will continue. in terms of the question on sanctions, the secretary will be clear that putting new sanctions in place would be a mistake. we're still determining if there's a diplomatic path forward. what we are asking for right now is a pause, a temporary pause, in sanctions. we are not taking away sanctions, we are not rolling

them back. this is about ensuring that our legislative strategy and our negotiating strategy are running hand-in-hand. >> so is he working well with the chairman, tim johnson, who said they would like to see new sanctions imposed? >> he will be consulting and briefing a range of members and that will continue as part of the briefing tomorrow. but also in phone calls throughout the week. >> is it next week or further on down as long as the diplomacy is being pursued? >> well, certainly, again, in the overarching goal of having our negotiating strategy and our legislative strategy run hand-in-hand, it would be for that length of time. of course, we are hopeful to continue to narrow the gaps. i don't have any prediction of the negotiations and the meetings next week. but certainly it will be a

temporary pause with that goal in mind. cred c.d. [captions copyright national cable satellite corp. 2013] >> a portion of a briefing held earlier today at the state department. you can watch that entire briefing any time online at our website, c-span.org. earlier today the pentagon held a briefing with reporters looking at relief efforts to the people in the philippines. rrr after a recent typhoon struck the islands. secretary hagel ordered the u.s.s. george washington to go to that country monday. it will arrive tomorrow. this is about 40 minutes. >> good afternoon. i'd like to start by providing you with an update on the assistance that the department of defense is providing in support of relief operations in the philippines. as soon as we receive reports of

devastation wrought by typhoon haiyan, secretary hagel ordered immediates for forces to move to provide assistance and relief to the philippines. the philippines is a treaty ally and united states stands by its friends and allies in times of crisis. currently there are more than 250 u.s. service members from the third marine expeditionaryberry grade on the -- brigade on the ground. they are supported by five transport aircraft and four ospreys. with additional transport aircraft expected in the next few days. as of last night the marines reported that they have delivered 107,000 pounds of relief supplies to the government of the philippines. our priority for supplying aid is water, food, shelter, hygiene products and medical supplies. yesterday secretary hagel

ordered the aircraft carrier u.s.s. george washington and our other u.s. navy ships to make best possible speed for the philippines. and they are expected to arrive in the area some time tomorrow. the george washington was in hong kong on a port visit. embarked on the george washington is carrier air wing five with more than 80 aircraft, including 11 helicopters. the george washington can produce authorize than 400,000 gallons of freshwater per day. s you know, and as a reminder, the u.s.s. lincoln supported tsunami relief operations in 2004 in the pacific, providing much-needed capabilities to operations ashore. along with the carrier are the destroyer. a the supply ship is already under way and will ronds visa with the

george washington strike group as they approach the philippines. the destroyer's are under way in heading toward -- the destroyers are under way heading toward the region. the department of defense is working closely with the department of state and the philippine government to determine what if any additional assets may be required. the speed with which u.s. forces are able to respond to typhoon haiyan highlights the importance of the humanitarian assistance and disaster relief exercises we carry out regularly in the asia-pacific. we constantly train for just hese types of contingencies, including the annual exercise with the philippines. coincidentally, personnel from china's people's liberation army are in hawaii now conducting an hrdr-focused exchange with our forces. i want to emphasize that the support we are providing to the philippines is a whole of u.s. government response, not just d.o.d. relief supplies are on their way to the philippines from the u.s.

agency for international development's warehouse in dubai. included in the shipment are enough emergency shelter materials and basic hygiene supplies to help 10,000 families. switching gears to a different topic, today the secretary's meeting with chairman dempsey, the joint chiefs of staff and the combatant commanders to discuss strategy and budget matters for several hours. and they will all meet later today with president obama at the white house. lastly, this is likely my final on camera press briefing here at the pentagon. thanksgiving will indeed feel a little lonelier this year without my blackberry going off every few minutes. i want to let you all know that the pentagon press corps has become like a second family to me, since coming to the pentagon from c.i.a. a few years ago. and it's been the privilege of a lifetime to serve secretary hagel, secretary panetta before him, the department of defense and all of you. i will forever cherish the relationships we've built both

here at the pentagon and on the many trips we've taken together around the world. i want to thank all of you for your hard work, telling the story of our incredibly dedicated military and civilian personnel and their families and what they do every day to defend in advance -- and advance american security, american interests and american ideals and american freedoms. thank you. >> george, first, i guess on behalf of the press corps, thank you for putting up with us for all these years. and best of luck. >> thank you. it's mostly been a pleasure. laufrlt >> mostly. ok -- [laughter] . >> mostly. ok. and just as a question, you talked about the response to the philippines and then also on the budget. can you talk a little bit about the cost of the response to the philippines and we've been hearing so much lately about how the military is not going to be auble to do multiship responses and multiprong responses because

of the cutback. how much is this costing and is this something that we're not going to be able to do in the future or are we unable to do some response currently to the philippines because of budget limitations? >> first, thank you for your kind words. on the assistance we're able to provide to the philippines and the cost, i don't have a precise estimate. obviously this is a fast-moving train. and our first priority is asifingt the people of the philippines. we'll come to the cost estimates later. it does carry costs by i don't have the figures. we are committed as a department and government to supporting hadr efforts in the asia-pacific region and around the world. in has been a key priority the secretaries' travels to the ambia pacific region and has been a focus elsewhere, up as in south america. this is something we're prioritizing and something we increasing ing of concern. also on this very point, hadr is

critical in that we help build partner and ally capacity. that's one of our main priorities as well. is helping others help themselves through these kinds of crises. naturally we stand ready to assist wherever we can, especially in areas like the philippines. a treaty ally. but i don't have cost estimates for you today and -- but we'll develop those as time moves on. >> as a quick follow-up. it took a couple of days for the orders to come, to get the ships under way. was there a cost related reason for that? was there a reason that -- were we waiting for some particular request or -- >> well, i would -- with respect to take issue with the premise of the question, we moved as soon as we received a request from the government of the philippines. we started moving personnel. this has been a tragically developing situation, obviously, and it takes a little bit of time to define requirements and what assets you have to bring to the table and capabilities that may be required.

but make no mistake about it, we moved out as quickly as we could in the wake of this terrible storm. barbara. >> so why not send the amphibious ships that general kenny says he needs that capability as soon as possible? >> we're not ruling in or out any capability that's needed to support our philippine allies as they sort out these very terrible situation. the nearest arg is in japan right now. i'm not ruling out the possibility that they could be moved to the philippines at a certain point. but right now we have a significant array of assets, as i described in my opener, to bring to bear, to assist. and that's precisely what we'll continue to do. >> specifically general kenny said sais the amphibious ships that one thing that none of the other ships do and that's the ability to deploy tract vehicles and small boats to help with search and rescue and to move supplies over debris-stricken areas.

and you say at a search point. but if he says he needs that capability, why are you not sending it? >> well, we are working very hard to give general yen kennedy whatever he needs to support relief efforts in the philippines. in consultation again with the department of state and the philippine government. we want to do this well, we want to do it the right way and we'll continue to define requirements through pacific command to make sure that he has the full support of this department. >> you talk about the ospreys. obviously unique capabilities there. what specifically are you thinking they'll be used for? >> i don't have a specific tasking right now. but the osprey is a key part of any hadr mix that you might want to send. they have capabilities to go in quickly and they have longer range in some aircraft helicopters. so i think they have been brought to bear on other

situations like this and we'll continue to see what they might be used for. i don't have a precise operation to announce today specifically geared toward the ospreys. >> was it seen as a decision to send them in there because of the landscape there and the destruction? and their landing capabilities? >> i don't know the precise reasons for sending the ospreys. but they are a terrific aircraft that could be used in these situations and we'll get you more updated information as with -- as we learn about what they might be used for. >> george, can you go into detail or possibly provide some examples of the support that the special operations task force in the southern philippines could provide to the humanitarian and disaster response mission think? know they do smaller-type of these things in that -- in their own area, but is there any role that they're playing? >> i don't have the specifics on a role that they might be playing but i would refer you to

pacific command for more details. i would note that it's very tough for me right now to get into the specifics. is is a very fluid situation and disaster relief efforts aren't something that you can necessarily work in a linear fashion. you have to look at the requirements as they come up at the problems that we might be able to help with. you need to work closely with the philippine government so it's not always is he consequential what happens. quential what happens. we're going to do everything we can to support relief efforts within the parameters of our consultations with the philippine government and our capabilities and we do have significant capabilities to bring to bear. whether it's personnel on the ground or or assets. >> george, the emergency relief supplies that are intended to help 10,000 families, where are

those located snow how will they get to the philippines and when will they get there? >> the emergency shelter and hygiene supplies that i referenced in my opener are actually being delivered by usaid and they're currently at a warehouse in dubai.

>> the scandal involving allegations of bribery and so forth with the navy, there's now several senior officers implicated, does the secretary believe this reflects some systemic problem, because it seems like all the services seem totally unable to manage contracts as these recurring cases of mismanagement and fraud and promises to fix it, is he concerned that there's a

systemic problem here? >> secretary hagel has been regularly briefed on these matters and these troubling allegations. i'm not sure he's ready to ssign or label or characterize the allegations as systemic at this point. i think we have to let the investigation proceed. one point i'd make on this is it was the u.s. navy itself that discovered these problems and has investigated them. there is an ongoing investigation. so i think they deserve credit for looking after these problems themselves. this wasn't some outside agency or department coming in to look at these deeply troubling issues. it was ncis that took the lead, and we believe they're holding people's feet to the fire and that's the right thing to do. >> george, since the company and its c.e.o. who are implicated in this case have

been doing business with the u.s. navy for some 25 years. i mean, there is a constant drip, drip, drip, an endless stream of naval officers that will end up on the dock? >> nick, the short answer is i don't know. it's an ongoing investigation and i'm not privy to the details of that law enforcement investigation. under the -- ve >> under a cloud. budget uncertainty, sequestration -- [laughter] >> the department, you, spokesperson, sequestration and continuing resolution, there's a perception that continuing resolution, if it goes through, would be less damaging than sequestration, can you walk through some of the tangible impacts of the continuing resolution, specifically on the industrial base and contracts,

procurements, r&d contracts that affect companies around the country? >> thanks, tony. first, fud told me i'd -- if you had told me i'd still be talking about sequestration and this level of budget uncertainty 2 1/2 years after coming to the pentagon i think i would probably -- i don't know. i don't think i would have predicted that. but here we are some 2 1/2 years later and we're dealing with the very real cloud over this department, terrible budget uncertainty and sequestration. it's done tremendous damage to he morale of our work force, both military and civilian, and it's done great damage to our military readiness. it's very tough for me to give examples about the future, but budget we can't ourselves under normal

conditions creates problems for his. it doesn't strike me as a good way to govern. continuing resolutions don't allow new starts, as you know. we have had i think one new art in this fiscal year in a staging base, but as time goes difficult much more to manage these kinds of programs. so what we hope for -- but i've said this before and it's come up empty. we avoid the kind of budget uncertainty we've seen in the months and years. what we hope for is an end to irresponsible sequestration, a budget that is manageable and doesn't do harm to our men and women in uniform, the readiness, the civilians that have been impacted. so it's time for congress to do

the right thing. i've been saying that for a long time. i wish i were leaving, frankly, after it was resolved but that's where we are. >> another piece of the unfinished business. last august, september, i think was -- you talked about matthew noonan, you said he used classified information. he violated his nondisclosure agreement. a year later the thing has dropped off the map and d.o.d. is trying to get his book profits. where does the case stand, george? >> this individual breached his legal obligations by publishing the book without prepublication review and clearance. it's a basic tenant of your contract with the department in these kind of roles. the department of defense and the department of justice are in discussions with his attorney and we're also poised

to pursuit litigation for the author's breach. this remains an ongoing process. it's taken some time. but as you know, the wheels of justice don't always turn quickly. >> he was on the philips raid that the department has allotted the movie "captain philips," do you think it's ironic you're going after the raiders, one fert men that put his life on the line a year later, as you leave the building, do you think it's somewhat ironic and maybe the department should lay off? >> when you are in a material breach of your contract with the department of defense, that's action worth pursuing, in our minds. so i think our position is clear and has been clear from the very beginning. i wouldn't change a word i said in the last year when this issue came to light. >> why not file charges? >> i am not going to get into the specifics of the legal discussions. this is a matter of ongoing

discussion with this individual's attorney. >> do you foresee that happening in the future? >> don't know. >> george, going back to the philippines, does this disaster highlight a need for u.s. military rotational presence in the philippines? do you think that the relief efforts would have been facilitated if the u.s. had more access? is this something you'll discuss with the government of the philippines and the access negotiations that are ongoing? >> we are in discussions with the government of the philippines right now on greater access for u.s. forces. we haven't come to a conclusion yet on that agreement. i'm not sure i would draw a direct linkage between our rotational presence in the region and our ability to respond to these kinds of crises. the fact of the matter is we have thousands who are deployed, american service

members in the region who could help respond. i would not draw a direct cause or connection between the two. stephanie. >> could you -- still on the philippines -- could you expand a little bit more on these relief efforts and how they build partner and ally capacity? just sort of talk me through how it benefits national security and how sort of one of the goals going forward. >> sure. one of the key strategic guidance, not just in the asia pacific area, one of the lynch pins of that guidance is to continue to invest in our allies and partnerships. particularly in the asia pacific region where we have had bases open and closed over the years. the goal is not to have new permanent bases for the u.s. military. but it's to enable rotational presences so we can work together with allies and partners in the region to address problems like

humanitarian assistance and disaster relief. the goal in this region and elsewhere is to help build partner capacity. that's in our interest and it's n other countries' interests as well. we can do a lot but we can also only do so much as a military, and it's key that countries in the region and beyond look to shore up their own capacity in situations like this. we realize there is a deficit in place and we're absolutely but we fill the gap think that's something important to work with our partners and that's capacity building. david. > back on the budget question. you say you're surprised that we're here over 2 1/2 years. do you think there is something

that could have been done differently? >> i'm sure you can find small things here and there that we could have done differently. the fact of the matter is we have all done precisely the right thing. we've talked about the prospective impacts of sequestration. we were very clear about that. we didn't shy away from discussing what we thought downsize of this mechanism that was designed to avoid these absurdities and we've been clear what happened. i think we've been clear and straightforward with you and with the american people, with congress and we are where we are. but i think we've done it the right way. >> there have been -- when the department deliberately did not plan -- was told not to plan for sequestration because everyone thought it would be dealt with.

and so they had to adjust at the last minute. >> there was misguided conventional wisdom about how long it takes for us to plan against certain contingencies. the fact of the matter is we did plan. we knew sequestration took effect march 1. we reduced some 30-plus billion dollars. and it wasn't easy. it had real impact on morale and on our readiness but we followed the law and we planned effectively. so i would take some issue with any suggestion that we somehow didn't plan for sequestration. the fact of the matter is we did and we implemented the plans. >> that's what you guys said at the time. >> we weren't planning at that time. there was a certain point which we did had to plan.

i admitted in a gaggle or elsewhere that we were planning at a certain juncture. i can't remember the precise date but we ended up doing precisely that and we had enough time to plan and to look at all the terrible options that confronted us. >> george, is the united states navy coordinating with any other regional navy and the relief effort? >> that's a very good question. i would probably put that question to pacific command. i'm personally unaware of any direct coordination. but we're pleased other countries are joining the we i'm sure and would entertain some kind of coordination if put to us. >> george, the president's meeting with personnel from all services. prior to the meet later with the secretary and combatant commanders, is that going to be

the focus of the meeting, concern of the troops as you go forward with your budget considerations, things like that? >> i don't know what precisely is being discussed with the president, but this is certainly that's on the mind of secretary hagel who regularly hosts private lunches with junior enlisted members of the armed forces and this is something that weighs heavily on his mind all the time. i think it is absolutely going to come up in today's discussions with the chiefs and the combatant commanders, the impact that all this is something on our troops and their families. i don't know the specifics or what is being discussed right now as you and i speak right here, but this is something that this secretary is prioritizing. just the meeting with the combantant commanders, is this a regularly scheduled meeting, do they do this every six

months at the white house? >> don't know if there is a regular meeting at the white house but the secretary meets with the secretary of the leadership council which is made of the chiefs, the service secretaries, the combatant commanders and they do get together on a regular basis, i would say three, four times a year at this point to discuss important issues like the budget and strategy. these are difficult times, to say the least, when it comes to the budget so that will be one of the top issues that they deal with today. jim. >> before you go -- can i ask the status of the president depth's assessment of syria's compliance with their agreement to destroy demcal weapons? we heard some of the reservations coming from this building. has that improved at all? has that moved forward at all within the last week? >> we don't assume, jim, or take for granted that syria has

declared all chemical weapons related materials or will fully cooperated with the opcw. we look at the accuracy of syria's declaration is confidential and we can't publicly discuss its details or assessment of it. >> there were reports that the syrian government had requested -- had requested all the vehicles and military-type equipment to help move some of these weapons out of the country to comply with the disarmament plan. a lot of allied nations faulted that. i just wanted to get your thoughts on that request and kind of why the regime would even attempt to make that sort of request. >> for the syrians to speak to, the u.s. military is not involved in that so that is for

others to address. is there a real last question? >> just a broader question. it's not issue specific. you've been doing in 2 1/2 years. you were in the secret world over there and now here. as you walk out, does this building routinely overclassify at the drop of a hat or have you seen a little bit more measured attempts over the last couple years to distinguish what should be classified versus unclassified? in other words, is there still a problem with overclassification as you walk out the door that you think this building, the military in general, immediate to grabble with? >> one of the inherent intentions when it comes to classified material in the intelligence community and certain elements of the federal government is openness and secrecy. i think there will be some degree of healthy debate about that and the overlap on how much of an overlap there should

be. in some cases, is there overclassification? i don't know of any government official in their right mind who would say there's never overclassification. i think that is an issue from time to time. overall, i think this department does a very good job of trying to be as transparent as possible about as many issues as possible. that's really been a goal of mine since coming here and i hope it continues. that's the right thing to do. transparency is critical for this department and for its legit massy. one of the things in the department of defense, u.s. military have very high approval rating with the american people is because we are transparent. even when it's bad news, quite frankly, we tend to come forward quickly and own up to it and talk about the measures we're taking to ensure that the problem doesn't occur again. some people may disagree with me about that. that's our general orientation. and we're going to i think

continue to do that. and whoever is after me i think will carry that forward. on transparency -- >> do you have reasons to believe that syria didn't declare all its chemical materials or chemical weapons? >> the deck collar significance is confidential. i couldn't get into characterization one way or another. i would repeat that we don't assume or take for granted that syria has declared all of its c.w. related materials or fully cooperate with the opcw. we hope they do but we are not taking it for granted. our eyes are open. >> another question, sort of looking back at your time here, it seems like -- this is becoming -- [laughter] >> sequestration sort of exposed a different political situation where what used to be

sort of automatic political support for very high level of defense spending is now very much in question, very much in could you tell. budgets over $600 billion are not a given. does the pentagon need to do more, in your view, to actually explain and justify why it needs to be funded like that even when wars are basically ending or over? >> we want to have enough money to support our mission. that's the bottom line. i'm not -- we are not at all saying that we can't take our fair share of the cuts, dan. we're not saying we need to ed a at $560 billion at inif i night up. what -- ad infinitum. we are saying that cuts do harm our mission over time and it would be helpful if we could actually plan over a long horizon. as we grabble with what we -- with what we know are going to

be lower budgets in future years. a that's the key to this. it's not trying to protect to the last man $600 billion. it's about having enough money to do the right thing to protect our nation. barbara, you will be the last question. >> i have to ask you about bin laden. you've been in both buildings. you know everything about it. and you talk about transparency. couple things i want to ask you. what did the news media, number one, never ask you about the bin laden raid that you were prepared to answer that we just never asked? and second, if it had gone badly for the troops, the u.s. troops that were there, had it gone badly for the navy seals, you talk about transparency, was the plan from the c.i.a. to come forward and tell the american people exactly

precisely what happened or ould you have had some potentially other story ready to go? what was your plan? >> the honest truth on part a of your question, i don't know if i can really offer up anything you haven't asked. i think most reporters over the past 2 1/2 years have asked us about every question imaginable about this very important operation. one of the greatest intelligence successes in american history. sorry. >> do we know everything about it? >> well, that's hard for me to assess. i'm not sure every detail has gotten out there. but i think you and the american people know a great deal about what happened on that very important day. as for what the plan was, if there had been a different set that umstances, unfolded, it would have been my call, for starters. think the likelihood is to

just given how these things work this day and dage we would have had to be truthful and accurate what happened. thankfully we didn't have to go that route and it was a successful operation. >> but did you have another -- you always have backup plans. did you have a backup plan of what you might have said to the american people? and what was that backup plan? hat was distorted? >> as i said, i think we would have been truthful about what had happened. the fact of the matter is we did have a plan for success and questioned a -- and we had a plan for failures in terms of what we said publicly. >> what would you have said publicly if we had failed? >> i think at some point we had to acknowledge what happened

and, look, there were a any number of contingency that could have occurred and we couldn't possibly plan against all of those. this was a very risky operation. it involved going into another country. equipment failure, you name it. that did happen in fact. obviously on the ground. it was a tough moment for those of us who were monitoring the situation closely. i think that at the end of the day we would have said something about it. >> but did you have a different story ready to go just in case and what was that story? >> i did not have some kind of cover story waiting in the wings. if one existed it didn't exist for me. >> george, final point of personal privilege. why did you look directly at me when you suggested that some of

us might disagree? [laughter] i wasn't glancing for any particular person or purpose in mind. >> just checking. >> not at all. >> i'd like to announce at your point who your successor is going to be? >> i don't think a decision has been made so i can't. do you want me to come up with a cover story, barbara? [laughter] my immediate goal is to spend a little time with my boys, to actually drop them off at school and maybe even pick them up and i look forward to spending a little bit more time with them and with the entire family and then i'll pick up from there and see what the options are. >> good luck. >> thank you very much. i salute all of you. [applause] [captioning performed by national captioning institute] [captions copyright national able satellite corp. 2013]

>> the house is in recess. members return in a little more than a half-hour from now at 5:00 eastern to begin work on six bills. votes scheduled for 6:30 eastern. later this week, debate on votes on a bill that would allow health insurance companies to continue to offer policies even if they don't meet the minimum requirements set by the health care law. also, work on a bill reducing lawsuit abuses. you can catch all of the house live on c-span when members return. and tomorrow, house and senate negotiators meet to discuss the federal budget for the fiscal year that started october 1. the conference committee's trying to find areas of compromise between the different budget resolutions passed by the two chambers. you can see that meeting live tomorrow at 10:00 a.m. eastern on c-span3. >> with the war in europe turning hot, when the blitzkrieg took place in the

low countries, the u.s. was totally unprepared. and george marshall, chief of staff of the army, came to president roosevelt and said, we can't do things we've done in the past. we have to act now, we have to act decisively and you have to do it today. so roosevelt went to congress the next week and said the u.s. must build 50,000 airplanes to protect itself. and all the auto companies were given projects to build engines and airplane parts. ford motor company was given the b-24 bomber which was a problematic airplane. it was the newest airplane we had. it was still in development stages and they wanted to mass produce this airplane. so ford said i'm not just going to build parts. i'll build complete airplanes. they took what had been done as individual pieces, and they took the engine drawn and they 2/10,000th of an

inch. it would go on the assembly line and unskilled assembly workers could assemble these airplanes. and between january and june of 1944, 35% of the four engine bombers built in the united states were delivered here at willow run and that was one of four factories building the b-24 bomber. >> saving a little piece of this plant was so important to that story is just -- it's beyond words. i can't describe the feeling. we will have and the big smiles once we pull this off. we did something here in detroit that was not done anywhere else in the world, and it literally saved the world from the axis powers and we did that right here. >> michigan's yankee air museum is currently trying to save part of the willow run plant and has plans to turn the abandon plant into its new home. find out more next weekend as "book tv" and "american history

life of ann he arbor. >> at today's white house briefing, press secretary jay carney said president obama agrees with what former president clinton said in an interview for the online magazine ozy.com and asked his team look at the ways of canceled health insurance coverage. mr. clinton's interview said president should, "honor the commitment that the federal government made to those people and let them keep what they got." and after those comments given by former president clinton, house speaker john boehner responded by saying -- >> massachusetts senator elizabeth warren today outlined an update the version of the

glass-steagall act. she was the key note speaker at an event hosted by the roosevelt institute and americans for tax reform. this is 25 minutes. >> all right. thanks for everyone's patience this morning. reassembling now. it's a huge pleasure and an honor to have senator warren joining us as our final speaker. i'll be very brief because she really truly does not need any introductions and to leave time for her remarks. let me just say that senator warren's leadership was at the heart of the creation of the consumer financial protection bureau which was a accomplishment of financial reform so far. and her continuing focus on

holding wall street and wall street's regulators accountable to working families gets to the heart of the task ahead as well. to many of the issues that people described in their remarks today. the financial crisis and the economic crisis that followed have made it sadly obvious in many, many people's lived experience that the rules and design of the financial system may look obscure, complicated, off to one side but they in fact have enormous consequence for all of us. what senator warren does so remarkably, her clarity impenetrating that on security and her tenacity for main street makes it easier to be hopeful that together we can actually do something about a number of the things that people talked about today and change that for the better so thanks so much for talking with us today, senator. [applause]

>> so thank you. it is great to talk to a group of people that want financial reform. it's important. it's something we need to talk about so i'm delighted to be here. i'm delighted to look and see so many good friends, so many people with whom we fought shoulder to shoulder. throughout the dodd-frank efforts and after that in the regulatory efforts and continue that battle today. so i want to start this by saying a very big thank you to americans for financial reform and to the is recognized valentine institute for inviting me to -- roosevelt institute for inviting me to speak today. i've been working closely with a.f.r. and with roosevelt and i am delighted to be here. it has been five years since the financial crisis, but we all remember its darkest days. credit dried up, the stock market crashed. historic institutions like lehman brothers and merrill lynch were wiped out. there were legitimate fears

that our economy was tumbling over a cliff and we were heading into another great depression. we have heard of that grim outcome, but the damage was staggering. a recent report by the federal reserve of dallas estimated that the financial crisis cost us upwards -- are you ready? cost us upwards of $14 trillion . that's trillion with a t. that's $120,000 for every american household. more than two years of -- worth of income for the average family. billions of dollars in retirement savings disappeared. millions of workers lost their job and their sense of financial security. entire communities from devastated and a new census bureau study shows that just a couple months ago showing that

homeownership rates for families with young children have declined by 15%. the crash of 2008 changed lives forever. in april, 2011, after a two-year bipartisan inquiry, the senate's permanent subcommittee on investigations released a 635-page report that identified the primary factors that led to the crisis. the list included high-risk mortgage lending, inaccurate credit ratings, exotic financial products and, to top it all off, the repeated failure of regulators to stop the madness. as senator tom coburn, the subcommittee's ranking member said, blame for this mess lies everywhere from federal regulators who cast a blind eye, wall street bankers who let greed run wild and members

of congress who failed to provide oversight. even jamie diamond, the c.e.o. of jpmorgan chase, has emphasized that inadequate regulation was a source of the crisis. he wrote this to his shareholders. had there been stronger standards in the mortgage market, one huge cause of the recent crisis might have been avoided. the crash happened quickly and dramatically and it caught our nation and apparently even our regulators by surprise. but don't let that fool you. the causes of the crisis were years in the making, and the warning signs were everywhere. as many of you know, i spent my career studying the growing economic pressures on middle-class families. families that worked hard and played by the rules and still can't get ahead. and i've also studied the financial services industry and how it's developed over time. a generation ago, the price of

financial services, credit cards, checking accounts, mortgages, signature loans, was pretty easy to see. both borrowers and lenders understood the basic terms of the deal. but by the time the financial crisis hit, a different form of pricing had emerged. lenders began to use low advertised prices on the front end to entice their customers in and then made their real money with fees and charges and pnlts and repricing -- penalties and repricing back in the fine print. borrowers became less and less able to evaluate the risk of the financial product, comparison shopping became almost impossible. and the market became less efficient. credit card companies took the lead with their contracts ballooning from a page and a half back in 1980 to more than 30 pages by the beginning of the 2000's. and teaser rate credit cards

that advertised these deceptively low interest rates paved the way for teaser rate mortgages. now, when i worked to set up the consumer financial protection bureau, i pushed hard for steps that would increase transparency in the marketplace. the crisis began one lousy mortgage at a time, and there's a lot we must do to make sure there are never again so many lousy mortgages. the cfpb made some important steps in the right direction, and i think we're a lot safer now than we were then. but what about the other causes of the crisis? there's no question that dodd-frank was a strong bill, the strongest in three generations. i didn't have a chance to vote for it because i wasn't in the senate yet, but if i'd had the chance i would have voted for it twice. i would have. but the law is not perfect, and

so it's important to ask, where are we now five years after the crisis hit and three years after dodd-frank? now, i know there's been a lot of discussion today about a variety of issues, but i want to focus on one in particular. where are we now on too big to fail? where are we on making sure that the behemoth institutions on wall street can't bring down the economy with a wild gamble? where are we on ending a system that lets investors and c.e.o.'s scoop up all the profits in good times and then stick the taxpayer with the losses when things go wrong? you know, after the crisis, there was a lot of discussion about how too big to fail distorted the marketplace, creating lower borrowing costs for the largest institutions and a competitive disadvantage

for the smaller ones. there was a lot of talk about moral hazard and the dangers of big banks getting a free unwritten government guaranteed insurance policy. sure, there was talk, but look what happened. today the four biggest banks are 30% larger than they were just five years ago. and five largest banks hold more than half of all the total banking assets in the country. one study earlier in year showed that the too big to fail status is giving the 10 biggest u.s. banks an annual taxpayer ubsidy of $83 billion. wow. who would have thought five years after the crisis that we witnessed firsthand the dangers of an overly concentrated

financial system that the too big to fail problem would only have gotten worse? now, there are many who say, sure, too big to fail isn't over yet, but congress should wait to act further until the agencies have had a chance to issue a lot of the dodd-frank required regulations. and it's true, there are still rules left to be written and that's because the agencies have missed more than 60% of their statutory deadlines. now, i don't understand this logic. since when does congress set deadlines which regulators then miss most of them and then take that failure as a reason not to act? i feel like if the regulators failed it was time for congress to step in. that's what oversight means and that's certainly a principle that would have saved our country during the financial

crisis. so let's put the pieces together. think of these two things. it has been three years since dodd-frank was passed, and the biggest banks are bigger than ever, the risk to the system has grown and the market distortions have continued. and second, while the consumer agency has met every single statutory deadline, so we know it's possible to get the job done, the other regulators have missed their deadlines and not given us much reason for confidence. the result is that the too big to fail problem remains. now, i add there up and it's clear to me -- i add that up and it's clear to me. the last thing we should do is to wait for another crisis, for another london whale or another disgrace or another robo signing scandal before we take

action. i partners with senator mccain, cantwell and king to offer one potential way to address the too big to fail problem, the 21st century glass-steagall act. by separating depository institutions from the riskier financial institutions, the 1933 version of glass-steagall laid the groundwork for half a century of financial stability. but throughout the 1980's and 1990's, congress and the regulators chipped away at glass-steagall's protection, encouraging the growth of the megabanks and a sharp increase in systemic risk. they finally finished that task th the 1999 passage of gramm-leach-bliley which eliminated glass-steagall. it would reinstate many of the protections found in the original glass-steagall act it

would wall off depository institutions from riskier activities like investment banking, swaps dealing and private equity activities. it would force some of the biggest financial institutions to break apart and eliminate their ability to rely on federally insured deposits as a backstop for their high-risk activities. in other words, a new glass-steagall act would attack both the too big and to fail. it would reduce the failures of the big banks by making fwanking boring by protecting deposits and providing stability to the system even in bad times. and it would reduce too big by dismantling the behemoth so that big banks would still be big but not too big to fail or for that matter too big to manage, too big to regulate, too big for trial or too big for jail. big banks would once again have

an understandable balance sheet, and with that would come greater market discipline. sure, the lobbyists for wall street say the sky will fall if they can't use deposits in checking -- and checking accounts to fund their high-risk activities, but they too that in the 193030's and they were wrong then and they are wrong now. the glass-steagall act would restore the financial system that began to disappear in the 1980's and 1990's. now, this is one way to deal with too big to fail. and i think it would work. and i am very grateful to a.f.r.'s continued push to make at that reality, but there are other approaches too. so what i want to know is this -- how much longer should congress wait for the regulators to fix this problem? another three months, another three years, or until the big

banks crash the economy again? treasury secretary jack lew recently said if too big to fail is still a problem at the end of the year, it might be time to consider other options. anyone counted how close we're getting until the end of the year? now i applaud secretary lew for laying out a timeline and i'd like to see the other administration officials and regulators to follow suit. if dodd-frank gives the regulators the tools to end too big to fail, great. end too big to fail. but if the regulators won't end too big to fail, then congress must act to protect our economy and prevent future crises. we should not accept the financial system that allows biggest banks to emerge from a crisis in record setting shape while working americans continue to struggle. and we should not accept a regulatory system that is so

besieged by lobbyists for the big banks that it takes years to deliver rules and then the rules that are delivered are often watered-down and often ineffective. what we need is a system that puts an end to the boom and bust cycle, a system that recognizes, we don't grow this country from the financial sector. we grow this country from the middle class. powerful interests will fight to hang on to every benefit and every subsidy they now enjoy. even after exploiting consumers larding their books with excessive risks and making bad bets that brought down the economy and forced taxpayer bailouts, the big wall street banks are not chastened. they have fought to delay and hamstring the implementation of financial reform and they will continue to fight every inch of

the way. that's the battlefield. that's what we're up against. but david beat goliath with the establishment of the cfpb, and just a few months ago with the confirmation of rich chord ray. david beat goliath with the passage of dodd-frank. we did that together. americans for financial reform, the roosevelt institute and so many of you in this room. i am confident that david can beat goliath on too big to fail. we just have to pick up the slingshot again. it's good to see all of you here. thank you. [applause] thank you. thank you. thank you, dear. let me just make sure. i never own my own schedule. do you want to do questions for

just a minute? is that ok? holding up two fingers which i think means two questions. >> so there's a microphone on the side. people could introduce themselves and ask their question briefly, that would be wonderful. >> ok. thanks, lisa. >> hi. i was hoping you could talk about the part of the glass-steagall bill that takes away derivatives seniority during bankruptcy. i was hoping you would elaborate why you put that in there. >> so the reason that is in there, as some of our bankruptcy efforts in the room know, is that in effect what the current provision does in the bankruptcy laws is that it permits a certain group of creditors just to opt out, to get a first priority if one of the financial institutions collapses. and let's be clear. i want everybody to follow what this means. in means that they don't have to have any market discipline.

they don't have to watch to see whether or not when they're lending to one of the giants, whether or not that giant is in good financial shape, what the balance sheet really says about the risks they've taken on and how they're making their profits. it's another form of too big to fail. i just want to be clear here. it's not something that exists with the small financial institutions. and that's why this is so fundamentally wrong. we perpetuate too big to fail which puts the taxpayers at risk, but what it also does is put every financial institution that's not in that category at a competitive disadvantage. nobody lends money to them. nobody advances capital to them without a very careful scrutiny of whether or not they're going to be able to pay back. but the big guys are able to walk away for free and that's wrong. thank you. it's a good question. >> i count myself among your

biggest supporters and thank you for everything you do. >> thank you. >> i believe that there is still a law that prohibits any bank holding more than 10% of total deposits in the u.s., and i believe that's the last few years, three or four biggest institutions have gone above and that congress has been granting them exceptions. now, americans differ in their beliefs but most of us believe this is the country of laws. and most of us don't like exceptions to obeying the law. how easy would it be to just stop that? >> that's a very good way to put it. as you were saying it. you were saying i thought you had a rule and i was thinking, i don't think we do have such a rule any more because we have been creating this rolling exception to the rule so no one actually has to follow the rule. but you are right, and what it's a reminder of is that too big to fail is a problem that

stretches across our uneconomy. it's all the way through the financial system, but it has implications throughout the economy. the ways to attack too big to fail are many. there's not a single magic bullet to this. there are lots of ways to go after it. i propose, along with john mccain and with our other co-sponsors one way to do that and i think it would help, but there are other ways we need to be thinking about as well and the question on limitations on deposits and the proportion of deposits is just one more way to get at that problem. there was a policy reason for passing in a law in the first place. and that is that congress understood initially that too much concentration in the banking industry was bad for the economy, there it ran too much risk for the taxpayers and it was bad for competition in the banking industry. that's the kind of fundamental values we got to get back to. we got to get back running this

country for america's families, not for its largest financial institutions. thank you. thank you, all. thank you. [applause]

>> live coverage from capitol hill tomorrow as house and senate budget negotiators hold their second meeting to work out the differences on a budget blueprint for next year. that's live on c-span3 beginning at 10:00 a.m. eastern. and on thursday, the senate banking committee meets to hear testimony from janet yellin, president obama's -- yellen, the current vice chairman of the federal reserve board of governors and would replace ben bernanke, who is stepping down after two terms. you can see that hearing live thursday at 10:00 a.m. eastern on c-span3. >> c-span, we bring public affairs events from washington directly to you, putting you in the room at congressional hearings, white house events, briefings and conferences and offering complete gavel-to-gavel coverage of the u.s. house all as a public service of private industry where c-span, created by the cable tv industry 34 years ago, and funded by your local cable

or satellite provider, and now you can watch us in h.d. >> the house is coming back in in a few minutes to begin debate on skicks bills. one of them -- six bills. one of them is a senate measure that would reverse a ban on individuals who are h.i.v. positive. here is more on what's happening on capitol hill this week. >> house and senate budget conferees have their second meeting on wednesday, 10:00 a.m. eastern. we will have it on c-span3. john shaw, congressional spornte joining us from capitol hill. since their last meeting, what's on the agenda next? what have they got to get done first? >> well, it's going to be very interesting. the meeting wednesday will include or actually feature the director of the congressional budget office, doug elmendorf, who will give an update on budget estimates, economic

growth and so forth. i think his appearance is a little bit of a filler. it's not really clear they need mr. elmendorf to go through the budget again. everyone knows the issues. everyone is well briefed on what the economic outlook is. but it will get a chance to sort of lay out the broad parameters. i think what will be most interesting is listening carefully to some of the lawmakers and see if there's any movement from either party. for years, literally years, the parties have been divided with democrats reluctant to make changes on entitlements unless there's additional revenues on the table. republicans being reluctant to put additional revenues and saying they would do so only with major entitlement reforms. and to get any kind of serious budget agreement, both parties are going to have to give. so far we haven't seen any indication that there is a wide -- a broad-based desire to give very much on the part of crates or republicans.

>> another -- democrats or republicans. >> another hearing is january ell yellen, the president's nominee to be the next federal reserve chair. what questions will she get? >> probably the overriding one and one in a will have financial markets in the world on edge is listening to her explain how the fed will begin unwinding its policies, how it will pull back from its very, very aggressive monetary easing the the last couple years, subsequent recession and now this period of slow growth. and the world just wants to know, the world -- people in the financial markets how the fed is going to return to a more normal interest rate policies, monetary policies. the current chairman, ben bernanke, has not -- has sort of signaled that he believes there are a number of ways that

the fed can do so but really hasn't committed decisively of doing so because the economy has been so sluggish. now it appears we're picking up some strength. there will be a lot of questions to janet yellen on how the fed will shift gears. secondly, there will be a lot of questions on fiscal policy even though that's not the fed's major purview. the chairman of the federal reserve board is the major -- one of the major economic spokes persons in the country. and i think there's going to be a lot of questions to yellen about whether perhaps the focus has been too much on spending cuts, too much focus on austerity rather than economic growth. so i think there will be efforts to kind of drag here in the fiscal debate. bernanke has been skilled about making broad conceptual points but not getting too dragged into the kind of details of fiscal policy. >> jumping over to the house next and the health care debate, the oversight committee in the house is holding another hearing on the implementation

of the health care law. what do they want to hear about specifically? >> well, there's a couple initiatives going on. in the house oversight committee, darrell issa is going to be holding another hearing on the problems of the new health care website. he's going to be subpoenaing administration official, an individual by the name of todd park, to get him to detail the problems. the administration has been a little bit reluctant, democrats think this is largely a show hearing. they think that mr. issa should allow mr. park to just stay at work and get the website fixed rather than coming before a congressional hearing. there will be a lot of back and forth, a lot of controversy. as i said, the democrats think this is a show hearing. they don't think it's really about an attempt to get to the bottom of the problem. >> what's not a show is the effort in the house to pass a law that would allow people to keep their health insurance, an effort by the house republicans, but that's also gathering some steam, not just in the house but elsewhere and

even from some democrats, correct? >> it is gathering steam. and it was very interesting, the house minority whip, steny hoyer, was asked in his briefing about that and his basic response was he hopes the administration is coming up with some ideas and some plans that would aplow the democrats to support -- allow the democrats to support something other than the bill that mr. fred upton is drafting, because democrats are feeling very uncomfortable about some of the problems with dropped insurance policies and they feel like they need to have an alternative. a few had drifted towards the upton bill, but i think the administration and the hoice democratic leadership wants to put together -- house democratic leadership wants to put together something. >> how does this complicate the scene when the pact that john boehner now is using former president clinton's words from earlier today, calling for delay or allowing people to continue using their -- keeping their health care plan? >> yeah. this continues to put more and more pressure on the white

house and makes it really incumbent from their perspective and perspective of democratic leaderships that the administration introduced some sort of alternative plan, procedure, administrative ruling, something and then -- in a countryle days allow them to move towards that rather than vote on the upton bill. they would be against that without alternative to pledge allegiance to. >> thank you. john shaw congressional spornte for market news international. thanks for >> the house is coming in now for debate on a handful of bills with votes at 6:30 eastern. later this week, debate and votes on the bill that would allow health insurance companies to offer policies even if they don't meet the minimum requirements.

work is expected on a bill aimed at reducing lawsuit awe buses. an update on a story, president obama announced this afternoon at he was nominating the commodities futures commission. going live now to the house of representatives. rules on which vote is ordered. recorded votes on postponed questions will be taken later. for what purpose does the gentleman from michigan seek recognition? >> i would move to suspend the rules and pass s. 252 as amended. the speaker pro tempore: the clerk will report the title of the bill. the clerk: senate 252, an act to reduce preterm labor and delivery and the risk of pregnancy related deaths and complications due to pregnancy and to reduce infant mortality.

the speaker pro tempore: pursuant to the rule, the gentleman from michigan and the gentlewoman, mrs. capps, each will control phi minutes. >> i ask unanimous consent that all members have five legislative days to revise and extend their rarkes and include extraneous material. the speaker pro tempore: without objection. >> mr. speaker -- mr. upton: mr. speaker, h.r. 252 is designed to strengthen health care for children, perblesly as a rule initial children. it includes re-authorization of the national pediatrics network and the chimp act. the original preemie act i sponsored signed into law in 2006, december, brought much-needed attention to problems related to preterm birth. .

according to the c.d.c., half a million babies are born premature, that is one in eight. this legislation will continue and strengthen the ongoing effort to track, prevent and treat prematurity, ensuring that every child, every child has a healthy start and a better chance at a healthy and productive future. in addition to addressing premature births, this legislation seeks to help children and their families with unmet health needs. the national pediatric research network provides more help to children with rare pediatric and genetic diseases. this could help the kennedys in my district. eric and sarah kennedy have two wonderful little daughters. brook and briale. she is here in this picture with rare spinal disease called

spinal muscular at trophy. these two angels that are known in my family as sleeping beauty and cinderella are warriors in the effort to boost research for rare disses and serve as an inspiration. e sad reality is it is often difficult to conduct research into kids with that disease. today, with this bill, we are working to change that and provide families with a debater hope for cure or advances in treatment. this bill will establish pediatric research network in overcoming gaps in research. networks that will be comprised of leading institutions that act as partners to consolidate and coordinate research efforts. and as this effort is finally nearing the finish line, yes, it is, we say to the kennedys and so many other families across

the country with a similar circumstance, you are not alone in this fight. lastly, this package includes re-authorization of the chimp act. nd helped chimps that were retired for research. this funds at n.i.h. and reduces it through the next five years and going to require the g.a.o. to study how the n.i.h. cares for the chimps and asking the gmple a.o. to identify and further save taxpayer money. i want to thank mr. lance, mrs. capps, and in the senate, senator harkin and senator alexander for their wonderful efforts. working together, yes, we are making a difference in the lives of so many. i would urge my colleagues to

join me in support of this legislation and i reserve the balance of my time. the speaker pro tempore: the gentleman from michigan reserves. the gentlewoman from california is recognized. mrs. capps: i yield myself such time as i may consume. the speaker pro tempore: the gentlelady is recognized. mrs. capps: i rise in strong support of senate bill 252 as amended. as amended, this bipartisan legislation would address critical health care issues through the authorization or re-authorization of three different programs, title 1 of the legislation would authorize the proo maturity research expansion and education for mothers who deliver infants early act, better known as the preemie act. it was enacted in 2006 in response to an alarming number arising in the number of premature deaths. those that occur prior to 37 weeks of pregnancy are the leading cause of newborn death and neurological disabilities in children. since 2006, efforts across the

department of health and human services have contributed to six straight years of decline in the premature birth rate. we have made progress in addressing preterm births in this country, one in eight babies is still born premature and prevention remains a challenge due to the poorly understood causes of preterm birth. i know too well the costs of prematurity on mother and child and the emotional costs it takes on parents and the fiscal costs that prematurity plays in our health care system. the act is necessary to continue the progress we have made to date and to do better by improving the health of mothers and babies. title 2 of senate bill 252 as amended calls for the establishment of a national pediatric research network at the national institutes of health. this title builds upon the strong body of pediatric research the agency currently

supports and strengthens it to improve research and clinical trials on pediatric diseases to train pediatric researchers and december imnature findings quickly. by developing a nationwide network of pediatric researchers, renewed efforts can be focused to develop treatments and cures for pediatric conditions and diseases. children have unique health care experiences. treatment needs research challenges and while research has become a long -- has come a long way on pediatric diseases, we are still beyond diagnose gnostic cures and treatments for far too many ailing children and that's why this title is so important. many of my colleagues know that this legislation is particularly important for one family in my congressional district, the

strongs. victoria and bill strong are focused on getting the best care and treatment for their young daughter, same condition that my colleague just referred to in his district. her diagnosis has changed the daily lives of her family and school and our community. the low prevalence of these diseases makes them particularly hard to research but for those affected, a new cure or treatment could mean a world of difference. this title is common sense for the kids out there facing a rare medical disorder and their families. as title 2 of this legislation, the title -- national pediatric network research act is an important step forward to helping these families and those who develop these diseases long into the future. and i notice over the weekend there was a marathon that this

young girl and her father participated in to raise money just for the same purpose as this research do. so it's both from the public and the private side that there is a concerted effort towards this end. and this network is based upon h.r. 225, bipartisan legislation i authored with my colleague passed in the house as a stand-alone bill on suspension earlier this year with strong bipartisan support and i'm pleased to see it included in this package today. title 3 ensures the national institutes of health can continue to care for chimps who have been retired. in 2000 they passed the chimp act. it established a sanctuary system for the lifetime care of chimps no longer used in

research. limited n.i.h. research and required matching funds from entities contracted by n.i.h. to operate the system. today, n.i.h. owns hundreds of chimps. following a report from the institute of medicine, n.i.h. has concluded that the vast majority of chimps should be permanently retired from research and this title makes it possible for the n.i.h. to continue caring for the more than 100 chimps currently in sanctuary and transition them over time by authorizing appropriate amounts for 2014-2018 out of the totals made available to the agency. it is a humane measure to fulfill the mission of the institute and attend to the chimp in our care. i commend chairman upton and representatives waxman and pallone in bringing this

bipartisan package of public health legislation to the floor. the staff on both sides of the aisle who have worked so hard on this legislation and the senate committee leadership, senators harkin and alexander for their efforts on these measures. energy and commerce members, shoo, commanch lance, and -- congressman lance are to be commended for their work. these are critical bills. all of which deserves strong bipartisan support. and i urge my colleagues to join me in supporting s. 252 as amended and i reserve. the speaker pro tempore: the gentlewoman from california reserves. the gentleman from michigan. mr. upton: i yield two minutes to the gentleman from pennsylvania, mr. pitts. mr. pitts: i rise in support of

another bipartisan bill, s. 252, the prematurity research, expansion and for mothers who deliver earl yes hy a would take important steps to improve children's health, particularly the health of the nearly 500,000 children born prematurely in the united states every year. since its passage in 2006, the preemie act has sponsored important research that has led to improve prevention and care of children born too early. this bill re-authorizes research and activities at the c.d.c. related to the causes of preterm birth, improving data collection and preventing preterm births. it creates an advisory committee on infant mortality to coordinate federal, state and private programs that address preterm birth. with one in every eight infants born in the united states

prematurely, this is a pressing issue. s. 252 also authorizes the creation of the national pediatric research network, a proven way to support research by coordinating research activities, including those in rural areas. i would urge all of my colleagues to support this liketisan bill and i would to commend congressman lance and congresswoman capps, congresswoman mrs. mcmorris rodgers and representatives waxman and pallone for their leadership in this effort. i yield back. the speaker pro tempore: the gentleman from pennsylvania yields back. the gentleman from michigan reserves. the gentlewoman from california. mrs. capps: i continue to reserve. mr. upton: i would yield two minutes to a leading advocate of mrs. gislation, ms.

mcmorris rodgers, the chairman of the republican conference. mrs. mcmorris rodgers: i rise in strong support of the preemie re-authorization act. every three minutes, somewhere in the world, a child is diagnosed with cancer. in the united states, approximately 150,000 children have diabetes. i believe that medical research is the best investment we can make to change these statistics and find new cures for these diseases. working with my colleague from california, representative capps, we introduced the national eed at trick network research act which is included in the preemie re-authorization act. in supporting the legislation, the coalition for pediatric research which includes the children's hospital in seattle said this is critical to strengthen our national pediatric research enterprise.

the pediatric network research act will establish the well proven and evidence-based approach for addressing pediatric research and enable the national institutes of health to support research and coordinate and streamline this important research. most importantly, it will help to speed cures to the youngest patients. i urge support. thank you everyone for your leadership and i yield back. the speaker pro tempore: the gentleman in california reserves. the gentleman from michigan. mr. upton: i would like to yield two minutes to mr. lantz of new jersey. the speaker pro tempore: the gentleman is recognize for two minutes. mr. lance: i rise in strong support of s. 252, the preemie re-authorization act which will provide vital and continued

medical and educational research effort in the national effort to reduce preterm births. this will advance the great progress made since the 2006 act and support federal research and community involvement in premature birth research. our nation's premature birth rate is among the highest in the world. and it is the leading cause of newborn deaths in the united states. infants born just a few weeks too soon can feas serious health challenges and are at risk for lifelong health and learning disabilities. in addition to its human toll, among infants, and its toll on their families, premature birth costs our nation's economy much financially. and while the medical community has made great strides in identifying the risk factors associated with premature births, far too many premature births today have no known

causes. it is fitting that the house will consider this legislation this evening. november marks prematurity awareness month a product of the fine work of the march of dimes. and the march of dimes estimates that since 2006, 176,000 fewer births have been born -- babies have been born too soon because inimprovements in preterm -- the preterm birth rate. this is why the members of the house and the senate have worked in a bipartisan and bicameral fashion to re-authorize the 2006 act. i thank chairman upton and chairman pitts and ranking member waxman and ranking member pallone for their leadership on this issue as well as senator alexander and senator harkin and senator bennett. i especially thank my colleague, congresswoman anna eshoo of

california for working on this important issue. the speaker pro tempore: the gentleman is recognized for an additional one minute. mr. lance: thank you very much. i especially want to thank congresswoman anna eshoo of california for working on this important issue that benefits the health and well being of the american people. this is how congress should work, together, on issues that make a lasting difference for the american people. it is in that bipartisan spirit that i ask all of my colleagues to join with us in support of the preemie re-authorization act so we as a nation will be able to continue our focus on premature birth research and prevention. my thanks also to congresswoman capps for her leadership as well on this issue. thank you, mr. speaker, and thank you, chairman upton. the speaker pro tempore: the gentleman from new jersey. the gentleman from michigan. mr. upton: i'm going to just close, any of other speakers. if the gentlelady -- wait, i'm sorry, i have one more speaker. the speaker pro tempore: the

entleman from michigan -- does the gentlewoman from california reserve? mrs. capps: i reserve. mr. upton: i yield two minutes to the gentleman from texas, vice chairman of the health oversight committee, dr. burr ness. the speaker pro tempore: the gentleman is recognized for two minutes. mr. burgess: i thank the chairman for yield. this bill is a commonsense olicy, it's going to remove -- the speaker pro tempore: the gentleman from michigan reserves. the gentlelady from california. mrs. capps: all right. mr. speaker, i ask unanimous consent to submit letters of support from the following organizations into the record, the children's hospital association, the coalition for pediatric medical research, fight s.m.a., the humane society of the united states, the march of dimes and a joint letter from

several health professional and public health organizations. so mr. speaker -- thank you. so mr. speaker, i urge my colleagues to support this important package of public health legislation and i yield back the balance of my time. the speaker pro tempore: the gentlewoman yields back. the gentleman from michigan. mr. upton: mr. speaker, i would just say that every one of us has beautiful children in our districts. this bill is going to save lives. it has been bipartisan from the get-go. again, i want to commend republicans and democrats in our committee but certainly on the house floor when we passed this bill a number of months ago as well. i want to say, too, i was a speaker and participant in an event just last week for faster cures. networking group from around the country, dr. francis collins was there, the head of the n.i.h., i spoke to dr. collins just in the last hour or so, he's delighted that this legislation is

reaching the house floor tonight and hopefully will pass. and i know that we are going to continue to make a real difference in the lives of families and that's what this is all about. i urge my colleagues to vote yes. i yield back the balance of my time. the speaker pro tempore: the gentleman from michigan yields back. the question is will the house suspend the rules and pass senate 252 as amended. those in favor say aye. those opposed, no. in the opinion of the chair, 2/3 being in the affirmative, the rules are suspended and the bill is passed. without objection, the motion to reconsider is laid upon the table. without objection the title is amended. for what purpose does the gentleman from michigan seek recognition? mr. upton: i move to suspend the rules and pass s. 330, h.i.v. organ policy equity act. the speaker pro tempore: the clerk will report the title of the bill. the clerk: senate 330, an act to amend the public health service standards of

quality for transplant of organs with the human immune noah deficiency virus, h.i.v. the speaker pro tempore: the chair recognizes the gentleman from michigan. mr. upton: i ask that all members have five legislative days to revise and extend and insert extraneous materials on the bill. the speaker pro tempore: without objection. mr. upton: i yield myself such time as i may consume. the speaker pro tempore: the gentleman is recognized. mr. upton: i stand in strong support of s. 30 the hope act. the hope act would eliminate the restriction on acquiring h.i.v. positive organs in order to permit research on transplants between h.i.v. positive individuals. it will increase the number of available organs and help all those who are awaiting a transplant. in 1984, congress enacted the national organ transplant act,

nota. the purpose was to guide organ donation and transplantation. in 1988, congress amended nota to ban the transplantation of h.i.v.-infected organs. well, today, h.i.v. treatments have extended and improved the lives of countless h.i.v. patients. this in turn has increased the need for organ donations. this bill would allow research to fully evaluate the safety and effectiveness of organ transplantation between individuals with h.i.v. specifically it would permit research on transplants involving h.i.v. positive individuals by eliminating the restriction on acquiring h.i.v.-positive organs. it would dwect e-- direct the secretary of h.h.s. to develop implementation standards for h.i.v.-infested organs and it will require the secretary of h.h.s. to revise transplant

standards based on that research. h.r. 698 is the couse house con panon to the hope act. mrs. capps authored h.r. 698 and our committee, the energy and commerce committee, passed it by a voice vote last july. earlier this year, the senate passed the legislation before us today. which was led by senator boxer, coburn, baldwin, and paul. bipartisan group. by passing the hope act now, we will send it directly to the president so that he can sign it into law and avoid a conference. this commonsense proposal has the p ten rble to save lives with 100,000 patients waiting for life-saving organs, permitting h.i.v.-positive donors to be used for transplants could save as many as 1,000 h.i.v.-infected patients every year. so today, tonight, we provide some hope for those in need of a

new organ. i support this bill. i urbling my colleagues to do the same. i reserve the balance of my time. the speaker pro tempore: the gentleman from michigan reserves. the gentlewoman from california is recognized. mrs. capps: i yield myself such time as i may consume. the speaker pro tempore: the gentlelady is recognized for such time as she may consume. mrs. capps: i rise in strong support of the h.i.v. organ policy equity act this hope act. the hope act is a critical step toward improving the health and well being of persons living with h.i.v. and aids and strengthening our nation's organ transplant system. many of us remember the fear and worry that surrounded aids in the 1980's. at first, no one even knew what caused aids. and the diagnosis was considered a swift death sentence. ? that time of fear and unknown, a blanket ban was placed on transplanting any h.i.v. positive organs even for the purposes of research. however in the last 25 years, medical research and technology has transformed h.i.v.-aids care

and treatment and now thanks to these breakthroughs, h.i.v. is a more chronic condition. this is -- this has led to improved life expectancy, something we can and should celebrate. but it also means h.i.v.-positive people are more likely to encounter medical complications as they age. they face unique complications as the powerful drugs that keep their h.i.v. at bay often take a hard toll on their body, putting them at increased risk for ailments leek kidney and liver disease. for some of these problems, the only treatment is to wait on the same long waiting list as all americans do for an organ transplant. but there might be a better way. according to transplant experts, each year, we toss out hundreds of h.i.v. positive organs that could be otherwise viable for transplantation into other h.i.v. positive people. these organs have the potential to save lives and lessen the

transplant waiting list for all americans. instead, they are wasted because of the archaic blanket ban that prohibits even the research to see if they could be used by those who already are h.i.v. positive. and that's why we need to pass the hope act today. the hope act would create a pathway grounded in medical science to research the feasibility and safety of positive to positive organ transplantation. think about it. this is a chance to possibly shorten the waiting list for everyone waiting for an organ. deliver better health outcomes for those in need, and lower health care costs by moving individuals off the dialysis roll. all while maintaining the safety and integrity of our current organ transplantation system. that's what the hope act can help and will help do. it is commonsense, fiscally responsible and the right thing for all americans awaiting transplant.

i'd like to thank and acknowledge senator boxer and senator coburn for championing this issue in the senate. with their leadership, the hope act passed by unanimous consent in june. i also would like to thank my colleagues, especially mr. harris, the republican lead on this bill, and also dr. burgess a co-sponsor and strong supporter of this bill for their leadership. and finally, i'd like to thank all the advocates who have work sod hard in support of this legislation. i'm pleased to stand with an incredibly broad coalition of health professionals and h.i.v.-aids advocates in backing s. 330. the hope act is is a commonsense bill that creates a path forward for research on this issue. it has strong support on both sides of the capitol and on both sides of the aisle. it's a critically important issue. it's an opportunity to save lives. that's why i'm urging a yes vote on s. 330, the hope act. i reserve the balance of my time.

the speaker pro tempore: the gentlewoman from california reserves. the gentleman from michigan. mr. upton: i would ask that the balance of my time be managed by mr. pitts. the speaker pro tempore: without objection, so ordered. the gentleman from pennsylvania is recognized. mr. pitts: thank you, mr. chairman. i yield myself such time as i may consume. the speaker pro tempore: the gentleman is recognized for such time as he may consume. mr. pitts:-organ policy act or hope act would lift a ban dating back to the 1990's, so the department of health and human services can conduct research on the safety and effectiveness of transplants between hive-positive individuals. as treatments have advanced over he last 30 years, many are living longer lives but are

experiencing such conditions such as kidney and liver failure. this bill provides a potential path to a separate organ donation pool for h.i.v.-positive organ donations, increasing the number of organs available for transplantation. it passed the senate by unanimous consent in june and is supported by the american society for transplantation and the american society of transplant surgeons, among others. i would encourage my colleagues to support this bipartisan commonsense bill and would like mrs.mmend doctors burgess, capps, chairman upton and ranking members waxman and pallone for their leadership and i yield back. the speaker pro tempore: the gentleman reserve? the gentleman reserves. the gentlewoman from california. mrs. capps: i yield to the

gentlewoman from washington, d.c.,, eleanor homes norton. the speaker pro tempore: the gentlewoman is recognized for as much time as she may consume. ms. norton: i thank the bipartisan leaders of this bill, especially mrs. capps who has made health care a signature issue for her ever since coming to the congress. mr. speaker, we haven't found our way out of one of the great disparities in medical science. the difference between the 100,000 patients seeking organ transplants and the mere 30,000 who get such transplants annually, the hope act provides a possible break-through, one i don't think we can refuse. and it's a break-through for many of those who otherwise would really -- whose condition

would make them hopeless in waiting for an organ transplant. the regular reviews to evaluate medical research that are mandated by this bill could allow transplants from h.i. vimplet-positive donors to recipients. ve the safeguards are would he haven into this bill if the procedures are shown to be both safe and effective. no wonder the boxer-coburn hope act was passed by unanimous consent in the senate. the whole sale ban in 1988 did not even allow research on h.i.v.-infected organs, i'm not sure i understand that. in this country, we do not take

research out of the picture, but today, medical science has come a long way allowing many to live with h.i. vimplet. but lose y -- v., them to chronic conditions to liver and kidney damage often caused by the h.i.v. medications that have saved their lives. if they go on dyalisis, there is virtually no hope for a transplant today. the way out of this is the way we have understood since the enlightenment, look for the evidence. who can know where the science will take us or whether it will take us anywhere. with estimates of as many as other 600 organ donors who

could be helpful annually, who would not want to try to find if this could be accomplished. again, i thank the sponsors of this bill, which i think is rightfully named the hope act. the speaker pro tempore: the gentlewoman yields back. the gentlewoman from california reserves. the gentleman from pennsylvania. mr. pitts: i would like to yield two minutes to the gentleman from texas, vice chairman of the health subcommittee, dr. burgess. the speaker pro tempore: the gentleman is recognized. mr. burgess: this bill before us tonight is a commonsense policy that will remove some barriers in the law and ensure patients who are suffering can access vital treatments. we have heard the numbers discussed tonight, over 100,000 atients awaiting life-saving organs. our current organ donation policies are outdated, so the

bill tonight creates this, allowing organs to be transplanted into recipients and this has the potential to save h.i.v.-infected patients every year. allowing the donations to increase as the organs -- lowing these h.i.v.-positive donations to recipients and it grows the overall pool of organs that will be available. further, transplant surgeons have experience with the transplantation of infected organs. they perform organ transplants with those infected with hepatitis c with similar methods. and i would reassure my colleagues, i have spoken to transplant surgeons, spoken with doctors at the national institutes of health and this does not pose an increased

health risk to the h.i.v.-infected patient from an rgan donated by an h.i.v.-infected donor. anybody who works in transplant surgery knows this is the number one issue they face on a day-to-day basis. this is sound, science-based policy and fiscal policy and increases safe transplantations and eliminating the need for patients to continue on medications and live fuller, more productive lives. i urming support of this bill. and i yield back. the speaker pro tempore: the gentleman's time has expired. the gentleman from pennsylvania reserves. the gentlewoman from california. mrs. capps: i ask if the gentleman has more speakers? i continue to reserve. mr. pitts: i would like to yield two minutes to the gentleman from maryland, dr. harris, one of the leaders on this issue.

the speaker pro tempore: the gentleman from maryland is recognized for two minutes. mr. harris: i thank the chairman of the subcommittee for yielding time. mr. speaker, the hope act is exactly the kind of bipartisan legislation that will improve lives and have a positive impact on our health care system. as a physician for nearly 30 years who has participated and conducted medical research, i know firsthand how medical innovation outpaces government laws and regulations and this is one such example. i have had the privilege of taking care of many patients for transplant surgery and seen numerous times the life-saving joy that an organ transplant brings to patients and their families. it changes law to make government work in a more effective manner for all patients needing transplants both those with h.i.v. and those without, which is what the american people expect from us here in washington and from their elected officials. mr. speaker, it's time to move

the hope act, senate 330. i commend the gentlelady from california for working with me to get this bill through. people are waiting for these organs and i urge my colleagues to vote yes on senate 330 later tonight. i yield back the time. the speaker pro tempore: the gentleman from maryland yields back. the gentleman from pennsylvania reserves. the gentlewoman from california. mrs. capps: mr. speaker, i ask unanimous consent to submit letters of support from the united network for organ sharing and coalition of health professionals and hiv-aids advocacy organization. and i ask my colleagues to support this important legislation and i yield back. the speaker pro tempore: the gentlewoman yields back. the gentleman from pennsylvania. mr. pitts: mr. speaker, i also would like to ask unanimous consent to include an exchange of letters between the committee on energy and commerce and the committee on the judiciary on

h.r. 698, house companion bill to s. 330. the speaker pro tempore: without objection. mr. pitts: with that, mr. speaker, i also urge support for this bipartisan commonsense legislation and i yield back. the speaker pro tempore: the gentleman from pennsylvania yields back. the question is will the house pass senate 330? those in favor say aye. those opposed, no. in the opinion of the chair, 2/3 being in the affirmative the rules are suspended, the bill is passed and without objection, the motion to reconsider is laid pon the table. the speaker pro tempore: for

what purpose does the gentleman from florida seek recognition? >> i move to suspend the rules and agree to senate 893. the speaker pro tempore: the clerk will report the title of the bill. the clerk: an act to provide for an increase effective december 1, 2013 and the rates of compensation for veterans with service-connected disabilities and rates of dependency and indepartmenty, compensation for survivors of certain disabled veterans and for other purposes. the speaker pro tempore: pursuant to the rule, the gentleman from florida, mr. miller and the gentleman from maine, mr. michaud, will each control 20 minutes. mr. miller: i yield myself such time as i might consume. the speaker pro tempore: the gentleman is recognized. mr. miller: i ask unanimous consent that all members would have five legislative days within which to revise and extend their remarks and include any extraneous material they may have on senate 893. the speaker pro tempore: without objection. mr. miller: mr. speaker, as chairman of the house committee on veterans affairs, i rise today in support of senate 893,

the veterans' compensation cost-of-living adjustment act of 2013. mr. speaker, it is entirely appropriate that we consider this legislation today after we honored america's veterans yesterday. this critically important legislation that authorized a cost of living increase for disabled veterans for compensation payments from v.a., veterans' clothing and compensation for survivors of veterans who die as a result of their service to this country, the amount of the increase is determined by the consumer price index. it's also controls the cost-of-living adjustment for social security beneficiaries. that increase is scheduled to be 1.5%. i want to thank congressman runyan of new jersey, the chairman of the subcommittee on disability assistance and memorial affairs for introducing h.r. 569, that was the companion

bill to this piece of legislation. i urge all of my colleagues to support senate 893 and i reserve. the speaker pro tempore: the gentleman from florida reserves. the gentleman from maine. mr. michaud: i yield myself such time as i may consume. the speaker pro tempore: the gentleman is recognized for as much time as he may consume. mr. michaud: yesterday was veterans day. its origin began five years ago on the 11th hour of the 11th day of the 11th month. it was signed marking the end of world war i. next year, we saw the first commemoration of the day which became veterans day in 1954. every veterans day since then has been a day of remembrance and commemorating for all of our veterans. today, we have the opportunity to put the thoughts and feelings of veterans day into practical

action. today with the agreement of the house, we will ensure that veterans continue to receive the support they need. on october 28, the senate passed . 893, the set rans' compensation cost-of-living adjustment act of 2013 which veterans receive 1.5% cost-of-living adjustment beginning in january. is bill directs the rate for veterans and indepartmenty for their survivors and depend events. congress has increased these benefits by an amount estimated to keep pace with inflation. this year's increase is the same as that provided to social security recipients. without this increase, veterans, their survivors would see the value of their hard-earned benefits erode.

many of the millions of veterans and survivors depend upon these payments in order to make ends meet and for some, it is their only source of income. providing this is an important thing that we can do to help veterans and ensure the value of their benefits does not decrease over time due to inflation. it is a way that we can, the day after veterans day, thank our veterans again for their service and their sacrifice. i urge my colleagues to support s. 893 and reserve the balance of my time. the speaker pro tempore: the gentleman from maine. the gentleman from florida. mr. miller: i yield such time as he may consume to the chairman of the subcommittee for disability assistance and memorial affairs, the gentleman from new jersey, mr. runyan. the speaker pro tempore: the gentleman is recognized. . . . mr. runyan: i rise in strong

support of s. 893, the veterans' compensation act of -- cost of living adjustment act of 20136789 this is a companion bill to a bill i introduced earlier this year, h.r. 569, which is included in h.r. 357, which passed the house veteran's affairs committee earlier this year. s. 893 provides a cost of living adjustment to veterans and survivors and other benefits. mr. speaker, mr. disabled veterans depend on these benefits to make ends meet and this bill will assist these vet ans as the cost of living continues to increase. while i'm supportive of this bill, i would like to once again state that it is unfortunate we have to pass this bill each and every single year. that's why i introduced h.r. 570, the american hero coast la act which would authorize a cola every year without congressional action. this would ensure that the cola for the most deserving americans is not tied to action or

inaction in washington. the house passed h.r. 570 earlier this year and i remain hopeful that our colleagues in the senate will follow suit so we can provide this benefit to veterans and their families without having to wait on congress to act. once again, i thank chairman miller and the house leadership for bringing this legislation to the floor. i urge my colleagues to fully support s. 893. thank you and i yield back the balance of my time. the speaker pro tempore: the gentleman yields back. the gentleman from florida reserves. the gentleman from maine. >> thank you, mr. speaker. at this time i yield to the gentlewoman from nevada, ms. titus, as much time as she may consume. the speaker pro tempore: the gentlewoman is recognized for uch time as she may consume. ms. titus: thank you for yielding me the time. as the ranking member of the veterans memorial assistance affairs subcommittee, i rise in

support of s. 893 to provide a cola increase to veterans. in the wake of veterans day let us take a lesson from president kennedy's admonition that we should show our respect for our heroes not just through words but through actions. this legislation -- is an opportunity for us to take such action. with its passage, congress show tangible support for our nation's heroes. unlike with social security recipients, congress is reared to adjust veterans' colas every year. s. 893 would make that important adjustment for next year. that's a good thing, which i support, but i would also urge the senate in the meantime to pass h.r. 570, the american heroes cola act that would allow for an automatic cola increase so that veterans' benefits are not subject to any congressional delay. making the adjustment automatic would remove this important

benefit from the capriciousness of partisan politics or personal grandstanding. this bill was introduced in a bipartisan fashion by our subcommittee chairman, john run january -- runyan, and me. it was unanimously approved by the house in may and is awaiting action down the hall. so while we await the passage of that automatic increase, passing s. 893 is an important step forward, i support it. it will ensure that our nation's heros receive all the benefits they have earned and i would encourage my colleagues to support it as well. because this bill with -- will be a true recognition of veterans whose service and sacrifice we honored yesterday. i yield back. the speaker pro tempore: the gentlelady yields back. the gentleman from maine reserves. the gentleman from florida. pll miller: i yield such time heas my consume to the gentleman from michigan, mr. benishek. the speaker pro tempore: the gentleman is recognized for such time as he may consume.

mr. benishek: thank you, mr. chairman. i rise in support of the senate bill 893, legislation to provide a 2014 cost of living adjustment to disabled veterans and their survivors. with prices going up for groceries, gas, and utilities an increase is needed for our veterans and their families in northern michigan. however, without this legislation, there would be no cola. as a doctor who served at the v.a. hospital iron mountain for 20 years and father of a navy veteran i'm disappointed that our veterans are once again put at risk of being held hostage to washington politics. those who serve our nation should never have so wonder whether or not congress will provide them with the benefits they have earned. in may the house passed the american hero coast la act, introduced by my friend and colleague on the veterans affairs committee, mr. runyan. this legislation will permanently tie the cola to the consumer price endecks, same as social security disability. i urge the senate to immediately

act on the american hero coast la act, join the house of representatives in a clear statement that our veterans must not be used as pawns in washington political games. i again support senate bill 93 and yield back the remainder of my time the speaker pro tempore: the gentleman from michigan yields back. the gentleman from florida reserves. the gentleman from maine. mr. michaud: thank you, mr. speaker. i -- i have no further speakers. i urge my colleagues to support s. 93 and send this important bill to the president today and i yield back the balance of my time. the speaker pro tempore: the gentleman from maine yields back. the gentleman from florida. mr. miller: i too ask my colleagues to support s. 93 and i yield back. the speaker pro tempore: the question is, will the house suspend the rules and pass senate 893. those in favor say aye. those opposed, no. in the opinion of the chair 2/3 being in the affirmative, the rules are suspended, the bill is passed and without objection the motion to reconsider is laid on the table.

for what purpose does the gentleman from north carolina seek recognition? >> mr. speaker, i move that the house suspend the rules and pass h.r. 2871 to amend title 28 united states code and modify the composition of the southern judicial district of mississippi to improve judicial efficiency and for other purposes.

the speaker pro tempore: the clerk will report the title of the bill. the clerk: union calendar number 185, h.r. 2871, a bill to amend title 28 united states code to modify the composition of the southern judicial district of mississippi to improve judicial efficiency and for other purposes. the speaker pro tempore: pursuant to the rule, the gentleman from north carolina, mr. holding, and the gentleman from north carolina, mr. watt, each will control 20 minutes. the chair recognizes the gentleman from north carolina, mr. holding. mr. holding: i ask unanimous consent that all members have five legislative days to revise and extend their remarks and include extraneous remarks on h.r. 2871, currently under consideration. the speaker pro tempore: without objection. mr. holding: i yield myself such time as i may consume. the speaker pro tempore: the gentleman is recognize. mr. holding: h.r. 2871 is a simple and straightforward bill that responds to a single question -- how should the federal districts in mississippi

be organized to best serve the eeds of litigants, the bar and the public once the meridian courthouse is close. the answer was developed by an add hoc committee of judges formed last year. to their credit they've fashioned a solution that's been reviewed and endorsed by everyone from the effective local bar associations to the judicial conference of the united states. specifically the committee recommends one, abolishing the southern district's current eastern division, two, modifying the statutory designation that places the -- for places to hold urt, and three, remod ill -- reea lining the division. and four renaming the realigned divisions. the representatives in the dotcht justice said they'll receive significant cost savings when this proposal is

implemented. the sooner we enact this bill the sooner the savings can be realized beyond the goal of containing unnecessary costs this legislation is a preerity since the effective courts are engaged in time consuming and expensive process of replenishing their jury wheel that forces them to identify names of jurors in possible trials and grand jurier is vess and provide proportional representation under the new divisions this para-- that process is on hold until congress passes and the president sign this is bill. acting through the ministrative office of the forest, the gentleman of north carolina is proposed the chairman howard coble. chairman coble immediately recognized the importance of moving this legislation expeditiously and personally committed his efforts to ensure passage. on behalf of the full committee

chairman, mr. good lat, i also want to recognize the efforts of ranking member mr. watt and the other co-sponsors of the bill which include representatives harper, thompson and palazzo from mississippi for their bipartisan support and advocacy. the committee on the judiciary reported this bill unanimously in september, mr. speaker, it is supported not only by those that i mentioned but also by senators cochran and wicker from mississippi, who are committed to doing everything possible to advance the bill through the other body without delay. in summary,s that good bill and it is urgently needed to ensure the federal courts in mitches are authorized and organized to function in a manner most efficient and economical and least disruptive manner as possible. i urge my colleagues to support this passage and i reserve the balance of my time. the speaker pro tempore: the gentleman from north carolina, mr. holding, reserves. the gentleman from north carolina, mr. watt is

recognized. mr. watt: i yield myself such time as i may consume. the speaker pro tempore: the gentleman is recognized for such time as he may consume. mr. watt: i rise in support of h.r. 2871 which i am pleased to be a co-sponsor of. this straightforward, bipartisan measure will realign the southern district of mississippi . the bill has widespread support that includes representative, my friend, representative benny thompson who represents part of mississippi as well as the affected judges and local bar. rare sli a bill introduced that is forthright, uncomplicated, has universal borne support, and is expected to save money. h.r. 2871 has all of these characteristics. the bill simply reorganizes the existing district into four divisions which will be designated as northern,

southern, eastern and western divisions. this simple reorganization is estimated to ave approximately $135,000 due to reduced expenditures for juries and the services of the u.s. marshals. i urge my colleagues to support this commonsense measure and reserve the balance of my time. the speaker pro tempore: the gentleman from north carolina, mr. watt, reserves. the gentleman from north carolina, mr. holding, is recognized. mr. holding: it is with pleasure that i yield to the leader of the north carolina delegation and the chairman of the subcommittee on courts, mr. coble, such time as he may consume. the speaker pro tempore: the gentleman from north carolina, mr. coble is recognized for such time as he may consume. mr. coble: i thank the gentleman from north carolina for having yielded. these gentlemen from north carolina have pretty well covered this issue but i will try to not be prere-pettive. i rise in support of h.r. 2871. it will realign the southern

judicial district in mississippi. it's been reviewed and is fully supported by members of the majority and the minority from mississippi. h.r. 2871 was introduced in response to a plan originally developed by a committee of federal judges from mississippi which was charged with formulating a plan to close the meridian courthouse. this courthouse is the only court facility located in the eastern division of mississippi's southern judicial district. the primary goal of the judge's committee was to recommend a realignment that best served the needs of litigants, jurors, the bar, and the public. given the review endorsement of the judicial conference, the fifth circuit judicial conference council, the judges, u.s. attorney, local bar association and court alike, it appears the judges performed their duty in an exemplary

fashion. in brief, h.r. 2871, mr. speaker, aligns and redesignates the judicial districts and places of holding court in mississippi. to improve the jew dish -- judicial efficiency. c.b.o. estimates that h.r. 2871 will create no budget tafere impact. -- no budgetary impact. its enactment will enable the affected judges, bar, and the public to be better served by a more rational structure and organization of federal judicial districts in mississippi and permit the federal judiciary and the department of justice to achieve substantial cost savings. h.r. 287 is a good bill as has been pointed out and i encourage my colleagues to support that proposal. with that, mr. chairman, i yield black -- i yield back the balance of my time. the speaker pro tempore: the gentleman from north carolina, mr. coble, yields back. the gentleman from north carolina, mr. holding, reserves.

the gentleman from north carolina mr. watt. mr. watt: i have no further speakers. i urge my colleagues to support this bipartisan commonsense bill and i yield back the balance of my time. the speaker pro tempore: the gentleman from north carolina, mr. watt, yields back. the gentleman from north carolina, mr. holding. mr. holding: mr. speaker, i want to thank very much chairman coble for his words, i also want to thank him for his friendship and his mentorship and the leadership he has shown in this body on the judiciary committee and particularly on the subcommittee for intellectual property and the courts. i urge my colleagues to join me in support of this legislation to reorganize nies the courts in mississippi and i urge a yes vote and i yield back. the speaker pro tempore: the gentleman from mississippi yields back. will the question suspend the rules and pass h.r. 2871.

those in favor say aye. those opposed, no. in the opinion of the chair, 2/3 being in the affirmative -- for what purpose does the gentleman from north carolina rise? mr. holding: i ask for the yeas and nays. the speaker pro tempore: the yeas and nays are requested. all those in favor will rise and remain standing until counted. a sufficient number having arisen, yeas and nays are ordered. pursuant to clause 8, rule 20, further proceedings on this motion will be postponed. for what purpose does the gentleman from north carolina seek recognition? mr. holding: mr. speaker, i move that the house suspend the rules and pass h.r. 2922 to extend the authority of the supreme court police to protect court officials away from the supreme court grounds. the speaker pro tempore: the clerk will report the title of the bill. the clerk: h.r. 2922, a bill to extend the authority of the supreme court police to protect court officials away from the spleem court grounds. the speaker pro tempore: pursuant to the rule, the gentleman from north carolina, mr. holding, and the gentleman

from north carolina, mr. watt, each will control 20 minutes. mr. holding: i ask unanimous consent that all members may have five legislative days within which to revise and extend their remarks and include traneous materials on h.r. 2922. the speaker pro tempore: without objection. mr. holding: i yield myself such time as i may consume. the speaker pro tempore: the gentleman is recognized for as much time as he may consume. mr. holding: h.r. 2922 is a simple and straightforward measure that accomplishes one purpose, it extends for a period of six years, the long standing authority to provide protective services to justices, court employees and official guests of the court. mr. speaker, article 3 of the constitution provides in part that the judicial power of the united states shall be vested in one supreme court. it is essential to the functioning of the supreme court that justices, court employees and official visitors be able to perform their duties with the

knowledge that they are provided appropriate protective services. for more than three decades, congress has authorized the supreme court applies to provide limited security beyond the court building for these specific classes of persons. this authority, which is due to expire at the end of this year, has been extended by congress seven times since 1986. h.r. 2922 is a straightforward extension of this authority for an additional six years. mr. speaker, i served in the law enforcement community, federal law enforcement community as united states attorney in the eastern district of north carolina and i understand that we can never take security for granted. that's why i decided to introduce this bill earlier this year. i want to thank the chairman of the committee, for recognizing the significance of this bill and moving it forward. i want to thank the outstanding support of the ranking member of the full committee, mr. conyers,

and chairman and vice chairman and ranking member of the courts, intellectual property and internet subcommittee, representatives coble and watt for their bipartisan leadership in cooperation in helping to advance this measure. in closing, mr. speaker, this is a good and noncontroversial bill that deserves the house's support and one that we have good reason to expect that will be taken up in the other body in the very near future. i reserve. the speaker pro tempore: the gentleman from north carolina reserves. the gentleman from north carolina, mr. watt is recognized. mr. watt: i yield myself such time as i may consume. the speaker pro tempore: the gentleman is recognized. mr. watt: i rise in support of h.r. 2922. i thank the chairman of the committee, mr. goodlatte, and the gentleman from north carolina, mr. holding, for introducing this commonsense legislation on which i'm also an original co-sponsor. this bill extends the authority

of the u.s. marshal service and the supreme court police to provide for the security of the justices on and off the grounds of the supreme court for an additional six years. i also authorizes those enforcement agencies to protect supreme court employees performing their official duties and official guests of the court when they are not on court premises. in 1982, congress first responded to the call of chief justice warren burger to provide for the safety of the justices while traveling or away from the court grounds. since then, congress has regularly re-authorized the statute for various lengths of time. h.r. 2922 provides for an extension for a period of six years, because the current authorization expires in a matter of months on december 31, 2013, it's imperative that we act to provide the justices the

security we have sanctioned over the years. workers -- work of the supreme the security and we have consistently authorized since 1982 seems to work well and we should act expeditiously to prevent a lapse in security for justices, employees and dignitaries visiting the court. i urge my colleagues to support this bill and i reserve. the speaker pro tempore: the gentleman from north carolina, mr. watt, reserves. the gentleman from north carolina, mr. holding. mr. holding: having no further speakers. is the gentleman from north carolina prepared to close? mr. watt: i have no request for further speakers and i urge my colleagues to support this important bill. and i yield back. the speaker pro tempore: the gentleman from north carolina, mr. watt, yields back.

the gentleman from north carolina, mr. holding. mr. holding: this is a bipartisan measure. it extends long existing previous policy and it is needed and should be done as soon as possible so as not to run ep against the deadline. mr. watt: i neglected to indicate in my comments, our colleague, the chair of the subcommittee, announced last week during the period that we work ut on the veterans to, that he was not planning run again and i hadn't recognized that he was still in the -- on the floor, so i wanted to express how important a contribution he has made to this institution for many, many years. i'm not going to tell you, how

many more than i have been here and i have been here 21 years. he was here when i got here. and i always tell people that of all of the people in the north carolina delegation, when i was elected to congress, he was the first member of the north carolina delegation to come to my office and welcome me to congress and we have been very good friends ever since then. 'm sure he'll be appropriately extolled all of his virtues in the next year that he is here. but it's going to be a big loss for us. and i appreciate the gentleman yielding to me to make those comments, because i thought mr. coble had left the floor and i intended to make them earlier when he was here. and i'm glad to see he is here. i yield back. -- coble:

mr. holding: i yield to the gentleman from north, such time as he may consume. mr. coble: this is a north carolina caucus. i appreciate those generous words. i won't be lengthy, but just thanks to all of you. i will be here for another year. the speaker pro tempore: the gentleman yields back. the gentleman from north carolina, mr. holding is recognized. mr. holding: it is a pleasure to be here on the floor with chairman coble. just a point of personal privilege to say that long ago when i was a staff member up here on capitol hill, i had a conversation with the chairman and asked him what i should do next and he suggested that i go and be an assistant united states attorney, just like he was before he came to congress. so with that, mr. speaker, i

urge a yes vote on this. and i yield back. the speaker pro tempore: the gentleman from north carolina, mr. holding, yields back. the question is will the house suspend the rules and pass the bill h.r. 2922. those in favor say aye. those opposed, no. in the opinion of the chair -- for what purpose does the gentleman from north carolina rise? mr. holding: i ask for the yeas and nays. the speaker pro tempore: the yeas and nays are requested. all those in favor of taking this vote by the yeas and nays will rise and remain standing. a sufficient number having arisen, a recorded vote is ordered. pursuant to clause 8, rule 20, further proceedings on this motion will be postponed. for what purpose does the gentleman from north carolina seek recognition? mr. holding: i move that the house suspend the rules and pass h.res. 196 supporting the sixth amendment to the united states constitution, the right to counsel, as amended. the speaker pro tempore: the clerk will report the title of the resolution. the clerk: house resolution 196,

resolution supporting the sixth amendment to the united states constitution, the right to counsel. the speaker pro tempore: pursuant to the rule, the gentleman from north carolina, mr. holding and the gentleman from florida, mr. deutch, each will control 20 minutes. mr. holding: i ask unanimous consent that members have five days to include extraneous materials on h.res. 196 currently under consideration. the speaker pro tempore: without objection. mr. holding: i yield myself such time as i may consume. the speaker pro tempore: the the gentleman is recognized is recognized. mr. holding: the sixth amendment states that in all criminal prosecutions, the accused shall enjoy the right to assistance to counsel. the right to counsel and and ensure that

defendants in all felony cases are adequately represented by counsel. ago, the supreme court held that that providing counsel to indigent defendants is essential. justice black stated that from the very beginning, our state and national constitution and laws have had emphasis on safeguards to assist fair trials before impartial tribunals in which every defendant stands equal before the law. the supreme court has held that absence a knowing and intelligent waiver no person may unless that person was represented by counsel at his or her trial. with this resolution reaffirms congress' continued commitment to ensure fairness in our criminal justice system and calls on states to ensure defendants are adequately represented by counsel.

i urge members to support it. and i reserve. the speaker pro tempore: the gentleman from north carolina reserves. the gentleman from florida is recognized. mr. deutch: i yield myself such time as i may consume. the speaker pro tempore: the gentleman is recognized. mr. deutch: at the beginning of his congress, members read a loud the constitution, it included the bill of rights, protecting the freedoms of all americans. i urge my colleagues to support this bipartisan resolution affirming our sixth amendment right. the sixth amendment guarantees the right of all americans to a fair trial and reads that in all criminal prosecutions, the accused shall have the assistance of counsel for his defense. we agree that the right to counsel for anyone accused of a crime is the foundation of individual liberty. it is essential to the rule of law and the basic principle that in america, the government

cannot take away any citizen's freedom without a fair trial. h.res. 196 is a bipartisan resolution reaffirming the support of this congress' sixth amendment right to counsel when this right is too often trampled. 50 years ago, the u.s. supreme court recognized that access to quality legal representation is essential to a fair trial. and that even americans who a 't afford an attorney have right to counsel. this landmark opinion have held that they have an obligation to provide counsel to indigent defendants. half a century later, the reality is we continue to struggle the right to council upheld. reports by the department of justice, american bar association, the constitution project as well as law review articles by top experts in

criminal law have reviewed that will legal representation has been undermind by crushing case loads and other obstacles. it has been estimated that 80% to 90% to all persons charged with a criminal offense are indigent and cannot afford an attorney. the american bar association in its report concluded that, and i quote, thousands of persons are processed through america's courts every year either with no lawyer at all or with a lawyer that does not have the time, the resources or in some instances, the inclination to provide effective representation. all too often defendants plead are innocentf they without understanding their legal rights or what is occurring. in this time of limited resources, the right to counsel has been undermined. these cuts have eliminated training programs to keep

lawyers informed and limited the ability of lawyers for defendants to access investigators or experts essential to adequately representing their clients. . . it's not uncommon for people to sit in jail for weeks or monts, causing the loss of a job, a home and in some instances the loss of a family. failing to provide adequate counsel to indigent defendants can also lead to costly pretrial detentions, costs associated with litigation, costs for prosecutors and appellate courts, incarceration costs of indigent people during the appeals process and other unnecessary costs. from our unsustainably high rates of incarceration, to the lives of families torn apart by unnecessary jail time and wrongful convictions, congress can't afford to ignore the economic and moral costs of this crisis in our criminal justice system. our nation's failure to uphold the sixth amendment has resulted

in bloated prison and jail populations at the state and county levels which hold more than 2.2 million people at a cost of $75 billion per year. an additional five million people are on probation , parole or supervised release and yet, and yet, mr. speaker, despite all of the comprehensive rereport -- reports, all the law review articles and all the stories reported by the media, the fundamental right of an indigent defendant to adequate counsel is at risk. the situation is dire. look no further than a recent determination made by the florida supreme court, allowing the miami-dade public defender's office to withdraw from 21 criminal cases because of excessive work load and underfunding. in fact, it was found that approximately 400 felony cases were being assigned to the average public defender. and public defenders in third-degree felonies had as many as 50 cases set for trial in a week. these facts provide us with just a glimpse into a growing crisis

within our criminal justice system. there is no question that states and locates are struggling to provide adequate and well-resourced lawyers to indigent defendants and ensuring that all americans, regardless of their financial resources have access to a lawyer is essential to our system of justice. our failure to uphold the sixth amendment undermines the premise that in america every person has the right to a fair trial and is presumed innocent until proven guilty. h.res. 196 is a product of bipartisanship. i'd like to thank the house judiciary committee chairman for his support of this resolution and the sixth amendment right to counsel. i would also like to thank congressman steve chabot for all of his hard work on this legislation and for working to ensure that indigent people in the criminal justice system are adequately represented by counsel. i also want to recognize ranking member john conyers and bobby scott for their support of this resolution. and for my colleagues who are as concerned as i am about the state of indigent defense in america, i invite you not just to support today's resolution,

but to join me as a co-sponsor of h.r. 3407, the national center for the right to counsel act. this legislation aims to improve financial and training resources for state and local public defense systems and encourage the adoption of best practices for the delivery of legal services to indigent defendants. the bill would equip states and locates with more tools to implement their own indigent defense systems and meet their constitutional obligations as defined by the supreme court. i look forward to working with colleagues on both sides of the aisle on this legislation. mr. speaker, the first step toward solving any problem is confronting it and that's why i'm so pleased to have h.res. 196 on the floor today. the supreme court recognized that, and quote, the right of one charged with crime to counsel may not be deemed fundamental and essential to fair trials in some countries, but it is in ours. it is long past time that the house of representatives engaged in debate and develop strategies to sift states with improving

delivery of indigent defense systems. i urge my colleagues to support the right to counsel enshrined in the sixth amendment of the constitution and to join me in supporting h.res. 196 and reserve the balance of my time. the speaker pro tempore: the gentleman from florida reserves. the gentleman from north carolina. >> is the gentleman ready to close? mr. deutch: i am. >> i yield back. the speaker pro tempore: the gentleman yields back. the gentleman from north carolina. >> i urge my colleagues to i yieldthis measure and back the balance of my time. the speaker pro tempore: the gentleman from north carolina yields back. the question is will the house suspend the rules and agree to house resolution 196 as amended. those in favor say aye. those opposed, no. in the opinion of the chair, 2/3 of those voting having responded in the affirmative, -- for what purpose does the gentleman from north carolina rise? >> i object to the vote on the grounds that a quorum is not present and i make a point of order that a quorum is not present. the speaker pro tempore: pursuant to clause 8 of rule 20, further proceedings on this otion will be postponed.

pursuant to clause 12-a of rule 1, the chair declares the house in recess for a periods of les

clear that putting new sanctions in place would be a mistake while we are still determining if there's a diplomatic path forward. what we are asking for right now is a pause, a temporary pause, in sanctions. we are not taking away sanctions, we are not rolling them back. this is about ensuring that our legislative strategy and negotiating strategy are unning hand in hand. >> are you working with the chairman and tim johnson who said they would like to see new sanctions imposed? >> he will be consulting and briefing a rang of members that will continue as part of the briefing tomorrow and in phone calls throughout the week.

>> the first -- will the first pause he's asking for go to next week or further down as long as the diplomacy is being pursued? >> well, certainly, again, in the overarching goal of having our negotiating strategy and i strategy run hand in hand, it would be for that length of time. of course we are hopeful to continue to narrow the gap, dent have any prediction of the gerkses and the meetings next week but certainly it will be a temporary pause with that goal in mind. >> that was part of a briefing held earler y today at the state department -- held earlier today at the state department. you can watch that any time at c-span doering. as we mentioned the house -- at c-span.org. as we mentioned the house will return soon for votes and general speeches. until then, a look at american's confidence in the media.

guest: the question was how much confidence do you have in news media when it comes to reporting the news fully, accurately, and fairly, that's the wording on it. 44%, a great deal of trust, 55% not at all. that's not radically different than we've seen in recent years. after 9/11 and in the late clinton years it had flipped and we had a majority in the 50% who had the positive, great deal of trust but that seemed to have flipped about the time of the iraq war and it stayed fairly low, as we talked about, since. at this point more americans distrust the media than trust it. >> i don't know if the poll went on to give examples or had examples from people about why they do or do not but at least from your research and maybe anecdotely are there insights you can offer?

>> the key is, two things i would offer, when you give americans the choice, they see the media is -- say the media is too liberal. just y too liberal, 30% right and only a few say too conservative. that's driven a lot by republicans and conservatives in our polls who are fueling that. you have liberals saying it's about right. people on the right are more distrustful of the media than people on the left. that's one factor bheend it. in relationship to 60 minutes and other recent controversy there's other polling out there that shows that americans have just a basic sense that the media are inaccurate and not trustworthy and don't do their job well. it's not just a liberal bees out there, apparently americans also perceive that the media don't do a good job. >> we have a graphic that shows the trust in mass media by party. this shows the percentage of the great deal, fair amount of

trust with 60% of democrats weighing in compared to 37% of independents and 33% of republicans. mr. gallup. gallup.r. new port at host: i'm sorry, mr. newport. ghost: it's the republicans and conservatives who have the real the media being too liberal. we have the most ideological media tom from the right. evision the nd tel highest ratings come from people who are more likely to be catched -- watched and listened to by the conservatives. we have this distrust in part because republicans ancon serve rives -- conservatives are saying media are too liberal while democrats are saying the

media are all right. media -- democrats don't think the media are too conservative, but republicans think they're too liberal. host: what does research say about how people get news nowadays from the internet or blogs or social media? guest: the internet is a big part of it and there was a poll that came out of pew research, and it was still television. they said how do you get most of your news they listed a bufpblg of things, tv wull still at the top. however internet was in second place, ahead of newspapers and radio and magazines and all other source. if you look over time that's the big change, the rise in the internet. most people say television first, and that could be -- could be c-span, local information news is still very popular, but clearly particularly for the demographic that is younger, the internet has become now the second most prevalent news source. host: i know this poll was taken before the revelations by cbs this week.

do you plan another poll on this type of question? and does history teach us about when these big stories happen a lot of people are comparing what happened this week to what happened on the 60 minutes piece about president bush and the national guard. >> we will update the trends so we can see if it made a difference. >> "washington journal" airs live every morning at 7:00 eastern here on c-span. the house is coming back in now for a couple of votes debated this afternoon. electronic vote be conducted as a 15-minute vote. the remaining votes will be five-minute votes. the unfinished business vote on the motion of the the gentleman from north carolina, mr. holding to suspend the rules and pass h.r. 2871. the clerk: union calendar number 185, h.r. 2871 a bill to amend title 28, united states code, to modify the composition of the southern judicial district of mississippi to improve judicial efficiency and for other purposes.

the speaker pro tempore: the question is will the house suspend the rules and pass the bill. members will record their votes by electronic device. this is a 15-minute vote. [captioning made possible by the national captioning institute, inc., in cooperation with the united states house of representatives. any use of the closed-captioned coverage of the house proceedings for political or commercial purposes is expressly prohibited by the u.s. house of epresentatives.]

the speaker pro tempore: on this vote the yeas are 401, the nays are zero. 2/3 of those voting having responded in the affirmative, the rules are suspended, the bill is passed and without objection the motion to reconsider is laid on the table. the unfinished business is the vote on the motion of the gentleman from north carolina, mr. holding, to suspend the rules and pass h.r. 2922 on which the yeas and nays were ordered. the clerk will report the title of the bill. the clerk: union calendar number 186, h.r. 2922, a bill to extend the authority of the supreme court police to protect court officials away from the supreme court grounds. the speaker pro tempore: the question is will the house suspend the rules and pass the bill. members will record their votes by electronic device. this is a 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 399, the nays are 3. 2/3 being in the affirmative, the the motion to reconsider is laid upon the table.

for what purpose does the gentleman from georgia seek recognition? >> i send to the desk a privileged report from the committee on rules for filing under the rule. the speaker pro tempore: the clerk will report the title. the clerk: report to accompany house resolution 403, resolution providing for consideration of the bill h.r. 2655 to amend rule 11 of the federal rules of civil procedure to improve attorney accountability and for other purposes and providing for consideration of the bill h.r. 982 to require the public disclosure by trust established under section 524-g of quarterly reports that contain detailed reports of claims for injuries based on exposure to asbestos and for other purposes. the speaker pro tempore: referred to the house calendar and ordered printed. >> mr. speaker, i announce my intention to offer a motion to instruct conferees on h.r. 2642

and the form of the motion is as follows. i move that managers on the part of the house of the conference on the disagreeing votes of the two houses on the house amendment to the senate amendment to the bill h.r. 2642 be instructed to agree to the following. mr. speaker, the house is not in order. the speaker pro tempore: the gentleman is correct. he house will come to order. please take all conversations out of the aisles. he house will come to order. the gentleman will proceed. >> one section 4014 relating to a five-year authorization of appropriations to carry out the food and nutrition act of 2008. two, senate amendment relating to funding of the bio-based

markets program. three, relating to funding for biorefinery, renewable chemical. four, section 9005 of the senate amendment relating to funding of the biodiesel education program. five, relating to funding for the rural energy for america program. six, senate amendment relating to funding for biomass research and development. seven, subsection f of section 0091 as proposed to be amended by section 90009 of the senate amendment relating to funding of the biomass crop assistance program. and i yield back. the speaker pro tempore: the gentleman yields back the balance of his time. the gentleman's notice will appear in the record. for what purpose does the gentleman from michigan rise? >> i ask unanimous consent to remove myself as a co-sponsor of h.r. 3292.

the speaker pro tempore: without objection. the chair will recognize one-minutes. for what purpose does the gentlewoman from florida rise? ms. ros-lehtinen: address the house for one minute and revise and extend. october was breast cancer awareness month, support those who are battling this disease, honor survivors and reflect on those who lost their battle against this dreadful disease. over 232,000 women will be diagnosed with breast cancer within this year, so events to increase awareness and education must be a top priority. one of the many great events that take place in my area is the annual american cancer society's making strides against breast cancer walk. a south florida native, was one of the proud participants this

year. she and her team put together a wonderful support system to help survivors and foster empowerment for all of those impacted by breast cancer. another team participating in the event was put together by a philanthropist. they helped awareness about early detection and promoted free information and services offered by the american cancer society. mr. speaker, education, prevention, diagnosis and treatment are the important steps to preserve women's health. every effort must be made to ensure that this disease is eradicated. it is crucial we do all that we can to prevent this horrible disease from taking yet another woman's life. i yield back. the speaker pro tempore: the gentlelady yields. for what purpose does the

gentlelady from illinois rise? >> permission to address the house for one minute and revise and extend. the speaker pro tempore: without objection. ms. duckworth: mr. speaker, today is my alive day. on november 12, 2004, i nearly lost my life in iraq. i would have died that day if it were not for my crew in my helicopter. if it wasn't for my chief warrant officer, we wouldn't have been able to land the aircraft. despite his own injuries, withstood the perimeter. if it weren't for sergeant chris spears who was wounded pointing the medics to take care of me before him, they wouldn't have realized that i would have been still alive. pat minchings landed his

aircraft behind ours and dan could not have carried me out if there wasn't help to all of us. because of my buddies that i am here today. i owe it to them to make their sacrifices and their heroic efforts that day worth it. live every day to the fullest and stand up for our veterans and all americans. it doesn't matter where you come from. it doesn't matter what god you pray to or whether you are male or female, what matters is the mission and you will never ever leave one of your own behind. we have a lot of work to do here in congress, but we must remember that our mission is to serve the american people. that means we must work together just like my crew. that's why i will always reach across the aisle to work with all of my colleagues to find solutions for our nation. we don't often get chances like i did.

i will never waste a second chance, this time that i have. dan, chris, curt, matt and pat, thank you for my life. yield back. the speaker pro tempore: the gentlelady yields. for what purpose does the gentleman from pennsylvania rise? mr. thompson: request unanimous consent to address the house for one minute and revise and extend. the speaker pro tempore: without objection. mr. thompson: mr. speaker, the white house has been under pressure for weeks as millions of americans have started receiving health insurance cancellation letters. despite repeated assurances from the president that this would not be the case. former president clinton weighed in and stated the following and i quote, i personally believe even if it takes changing the law, the president should honor

the commitment the federal government has made and let them keep what they got. end of quote. last week, the president apologized despite american families continuing to lose their coverage. mr. speaker, rather than apologize to the millions of americans who are losing their coverage, the president should fulfill the promise that was made. this week, the house will consider h.r. 3350, keep your health plan act which will allow insurance companies to continue with their plans that americans would like to keep. if the president is sincere in keeping his promise, the least he can do is support this bipartisan legislation. thank you, and i yield back. the speaker pro tempore: the gentleman yields. for what purpose does the entleman from california rise? >> i ask unanimous consent to address the house for one minute and revise and extend my remarks. the speaker pro tempore: without objection. >> i rise to recognize my

friend, california judge walker he has served much of the eastern portion of alameda county since 1994. iffers apointed as a municipal court judge and elevated to superior court judge for alameda county in 1998. for 19 years he served in the valley and when i was a prosecutor, he kept me in line. mr. swalwell: he's known for being a tough but down to earth and compassionate judge and never shies away from a lighthearted moment in his courtroom. he is respected by his peers and those who have argueded before him. e is a very familiar face down downtown pleasanton and local rotary club meetings. he's been instrumental in helping bring a larger courthouse to the area. i wish him the best of luck as he begin this is new chapter of his life. i yield back. the speaker pro tempore: the gentleman yields g -- yields.

for what purpose does the gentlelady from west virginia rise? >> to address the house for one minute and revise and extend my remarks. the speaker pro tempore: without objection. >> thank you, mr. speaker. the president promised americans that if they like thared health care plan they would be able to keep it. that promise is meaningless to the millions who have already been notified they'll lose their insurance plan. stacy one of those, forced to choose a more expensive, new health insurance plan. mrs. capito: stacy writes, i have no desire to have government-funded health care and don't want to utilize the marketplace. ill you please help us barbara will be forced out of her plan that has a $250 deductible. when she asked her insurer, she

was told her plan would no longer be offered because it does not include maternity and pediatric coverage. barbara is 61 years old and widowed. the keep your health care -- the keep your health plan act will save americans like stacy and barbara from the broken promises of obamacare and allow their current health care plans to be offered for another year. i urge my colleagues to join me in voting for this bill to keep the promise the president made to the american people. i yield back. the speaker pro tempore: the gentlelady yields. for what purpose does the gentleman from texas rise? >> to address the house for one minute and revise and extend my remarks. the speaker pro tempore: without objection. mr. green: mr. speaker, i rise tonight because a sizable portion of my community is in mourning. in the aftermath of the typhoon that hit the philippines on november 8, my community is in mourning and is looking for

answers. as you know, we've had more than 1,700 persons pronounced dead. 10,000 are projected to die. 9.7 million people have been affected. more than 23,000 homes and infrastructure has been damaged. 2.5 million will need immediate food assistance. mr. speaker, while we are in mourning, i am grateful that the administration has sent the u.s.s. george washington into the area. it will produce water. usaid has authorized $10 million. and there are other agencies and organizations as well as countries being beneficial and helpful. but i want to tonight announce that there's a lot more that will have to be done and i want to do my part. i thank the administration for

what's being done. i yield back. the speaker pro tempore: the gentleman yields. for what purpose does the gentleman from california rise? to ask unanimous consent address the body and rerevise and extend my remarks. the speaker pro tempore: without objection. >> thank you, mr. speaker. i rise to express my deepest condolences to the people of the philippines and the -- in the aftermath of what was possibly the strongest typhoon in recorded history to ever hit land. as many as 0,000 people are feared dead, 600,000 displaced. as chairman of the foreign affairs committee i'm committed to helping the people of the philippines recover and rebill. mr. royce: the u.s. is providing $20 million in immediate humanitarian assistance and as we speak the u.s. navy and marines are working hand in hand with their filipino counterparts in the rescue and recovery process. mr. speaker, the situation in the philippines is dire.

american assistance and post-disaster relief is often the difference between life an death. even as we speak, the american people are opening their hearts and making contributions to the relief effort. we stand with the people of the philippines as they begin the long road to recovery. the united states and the american people are by your side. today, we are all filipinos and we share the unimaginable grief that many of you in the philippines are feeling right now. mr. speaker, i yield back. the speaker pro tempore: the gentleman yields. for what purpose does the gentleman from minnesota rise? >> i ask unanimous consent to address the house for one minute and revise and extend my remarks. the speaker pro tempore: without objection. >> mr. speaker i rise to congratulate the dina high school girls tennis team. once again they demonstrated extreme passion, tenacity and dedication in winning their

17th consecutive 2-aa tournament this year. the commitment they showed throughout the season was outstanding. mr. paulsen: they have truly exemplified what it means to be student athletes. i'd like to commend the coach, stee paulsen and larry foerster, for leading this team and previous teams to their position. congratulations also go to caitlin for placing first in the singles tournament. the tennis team displays a positive standard for their classmates and our entire community it's an honor to represent and recognize such wonderful and outstanding student athletes. i offer them congratulations and i yield back. the speaker pro tempore: the gentleman yields. for what purpose does the gentleman from california rise? >> i ask unanimous consent for one minute to address the house and revise and extend my remarks. the speaker pro tempore: without objection.

>> thank you, mr. speaker. again, on the front of they have affordable care act, we have yet another business, this one in northern california, par pra dice, california, called california vocations. it's a nonprofit group that helps people with developmental disabilities to find employment. this organization has had to drop for 90 employees its health care coverage because it cannot afford it under the affordable care act. mr. lamalfa: this week we'll be taking up legislation to give the opportunity for people narke like their health insurance, to be keep it, as was promised by the president. we need to move on this measure in order to help the president keep the promise he said or implied but more importantly the promise to the american people that they have freedom and choice in this country and not have the heavy hand of government deciding for them. i yield back. the speaker pro tempore: the gentleman yields. the chair lays before the house

the following personal requests. the clerk: leaves of absence requested for mr. jones of north carolina for today and the balance of the week and mr. rush of illinois for today and the balance of the week. the speaker pro tempore: without objection the requests are granted. under the speaker's announced poll soy of -- policy of january 3, 2013, the gentleman from california, mr. garamendi, is recognized for of minutes as the designee of the minority eader.

. mr. garamendi: mr. speaker, thank you for the opportunity. 435 members of the house of representatives spent the last 10 days back in their districts and i suspect, like me, they had a chance to meet with their constituents, to talk about the issues of the day and to see america's real progress, the progress that is taking place in our communities. i'd like to share some of those experiences over this last -- that i had over this last 10 days with the members of this house, because they are instructive about what we ought to be doing here in the house of representatives. every person i talked to, probably more than 30 meetings, many of them public in nature, town hall meetings, meetings at manufacturing plants with the workers, meetings at the universities, all of those

people had the same agenda. frankly, it ought to be our agenda because it's america's agenda. they want this economy to grow. they want this economy to provide the job opportunities that americans must have. those good, hardworking american families, they want to go to work, they want to have a decent weage and they want to be certain that when they are sick they have an affordable health care policy. we hear a lot of rhetoric here about the affordable health care act and obamacare, but back home, people are trying to figure out their insurance programs. just like they do every time at this time of year. every year, it's time to renew your insurance policy and people look at new policies, they put aside the old policy, they get a notice that their old policy, the cost has gone up or the coverage has cheaged,

now they're in the same situation but we have a name for it now, we call it obamacare. americans always in the fall have a high level of confusion as they try to figure out what to do with their health care for the coming year. at one meeting i attended this year, this last week, with a group of doctors and administrators, they said this will work it out. this is no different than we've seen every year. we know that at the end of this process, the health care insurance will go on and people will have coverage. and then they added, but this year, they'll be far more people with health care coverage and in our hospital there will not be as many uncompensated care. that is, people who don't have insurance. so they said, just keep working at it. let this thing settle down. let it go forward. because we know that in california, millions of our citizens and our neighbors will

finally have health care insurance. but, hey, this is a place of rhetoric, this is a place where we create problems like the new crisis that's going to come up in just two and a half months. oh, yeah. we've manufactured yet another crisis on january 15, we're going to have to go through our quarterly funding of the strongest government in the entire world. hello, you said, you mean, you're actually funding the united states government once every three months? you don't have a full-year funding? that's right. we don't. so yet we have one more manufactured crisis, be aware, january 16, 15th, is coming. is there another government shutdown? the american people, my constituents, in my district, said don't let it happen again. don't let it happen again. it hurt us. it hurt us. in our businesses, we had to

lay off people. but mr. congressman, what we want is a steady, steady policy out of washington. we want to know what the long term looks like. we want to know what the long-term tax policy is. we want to know what the funding programs are going to be for the military, for the social welfare programs. the we don't want to have to face, as one constituent told me, as i viewed -- as i visited their head start program, we don't want to have to lay people off. we don't want to have to tell the children, the 600 in my district, that are no longer in the head start program, oh, i'm sorry, you can't come to school next week because funding from washington was cut. it's time for us in the house of representatives to say -- to settle down. it's time for us to put aside all of our rhetoric, we know we have to work together, it's time for us to come up with some long-term solutions for america's problems.

tonight, i'd like to talk about how we can build jobs here in the united states, how we can rebuild the manufacturing sector of the united states economy. a sector of the economy that just 15 years ago employed just under 20 million americans, with solid jobs, with -- where the wife or husband could go to work each day, knowing they would bring home a paycheck sufficient to pay the mortgage on the house, to buy the car, and to have a health insurance policy provided by their employer. now we're probably somewhere near 11 million americans in manufacturing. so what we need to do is go back to the basics. we need to go back to those critical investments, both public and private, that have created this incredible economy.

even though manufacturing is smaller, nonetheless, the economy of the united states remains the biggest in the world. if we continue with this three-month funding of the federal government, if we continue to withdraw the critical public investments and the critical inducements to the private sector to make their investments, we'll see our economy slip away. we'll see the strength of this nation ebb. and we'll wonder down the line what happened. well, there are several things that allow the american -- that allow america to build these kinds of things. that's a modern locomotive destined to be on the amtrak line here on the east coast. it was the first modern lobbying motive made in america --

locomotive, 100% american-made for the last 60, 70 years. how did it come to pass that this locomotive and 77 other locomotives just like it, will be on the tracks here on the east coast. 100% american-made. how did it happen? it happened with government policy. so the men, women and children that ride the trains here on the eastern corridor, are going to have a new system available to them. critical investments were made ver the years. critical investments in each one of these issues. and these are the way in each of these areas, in international trade, in tax policy, in energy policy, labor relations issues,

education, research and infrastructure. oh, by the way, none of this is new. these are not new things. these have been in place in america since george washington's time. indeed, george washington, reached out to alexander hamilton, and said, hey, alex, i need to help here. i want to build the american economy here, so what can we do? alexander hamilton said, let me work on it and came back two months later with a report. we have our reports around here. our reports are usually 2,000 or 3,000 pages, maybe his was less than 50, and he said there are things we can do at the federal level to grow the american economy, to build the manufacturing sector in america, he called it manufacturers, and he said trade policy.

we need a trade policy that protects american manufacturers against cheap imports coming into the united states against those who would subsidize their businesses to the detriment of american businesses. he said trade policy. we need a trade policy that protects american manufacturing. that was alexander hamilton in his report to george washington in the first months of the first administration of the united states government. tax policy was also there. he said that in tax policy, we shouldn't be taxing ours -- our manufacturing products, we should be taxing those products that are coming from overseas. those are called duties. and so tax policy was part of it. actually, energy policy wasn't on the list at the time, so we can kind of put that aside, although that is an extremely important discussion for today.

but for the purposes of today, we'll let that go. labor at the time was not such a good thing. there were no laws protecting the men and women who worked and certainly there was slavery and all the horrible things that went with that. but labor policy was also not part of what he talked about. but he did talk about the education, and this was probably a conversation that -- i'm not sure hamilton and jefferson had, but education was very, very much apart of the early effort in the american to stimulate economic growth, manufacturing and the like. interesting, research wasn't , ecifically called out, but but, while they didn't use the term research, they used the word patents, patent policy, which was also part of this report. while they didn't say research

formally, they did say out of the innovative and inventive minds of americans would come new ideas and there needed to be a patent policy to allow those new ideas to mature and go to the benefit of the inventor and entrepreneur. way back in the beginning of this nation's economic future, certain policies were laid in place that actually led to the extraordinary growth in infrastructure. hamilton specifically said and george washington agreed that there needed to be a transportation policy for the united states. we are calling that infrastructure. then they called it canals, ports, roads. today we call it canals, ports, roads, airports. we call it internet. we call it telecommunications systems. it's the infrastructure upon which the economy then grows.

way back in the 1780's, these ideas were presented to the congress of the united states. some of them enacted by the congress. some of them enacted by the various state governments. and over the years, as generations have gone by, as new men and women have come to sit here in the halls of this great congress and in the senate and new presidents, there has been a constant drumbeat of critical investment by the united states government in the foundation of economic growth. and today, in the debates that are occurring here on the floor of this house and across this nation, there is a debate about the role of the federal government in the future economy of the united states. you just heard part of that debate from some of my colleagues who preceded me on

the floor, saying that the united states government really ought not be involved in health care. too much. ok, they didn't like the affordable health care act. they wanted it to disappear, repealed, or otherwise gone. well, ok. but there's this thing called medicare. i don't hear anybody on the floor saying, well, they actually did call for the repeal of medicare, but that hasn't gone very far. but the federal government is involved in the aspects of american life. you will find us now involved soon in a debate about trade policy. should we have unlimited free trade in which the american businesses are open to unfair competition from around the world, from workers that are virtually paid nothing in something of a less developed country of the world, where there are no laws about working

conditions, where factories collapse. should american businesses have to compete with that kind of competition? i think not. so i would use the word fair trade, not free trade, but fair trade. trade policies that are fair to the american worker, that give the american worker a chance to compete in the world market rather than having our business simply run away, chasing the cheapest wage rate in the world. so trade policy is going to be discussed here with the transpacific partnership program and perhaps a similar one for europe. we must be very careful, very, very careful as we analyze this as the american work is not put in a disadvantageous position where they will lose their job to unfair competition from around the world. so it has to be fair trade.

let me move down here to the infrastructure issue. my district is 200 miles in the sacramento river valley. i have 1,000 miles of levees that protect farms, ranches and cities from floods. we have had disastrous floods over the years. those levees are critical. a critical infrastructure. not only toll protect human life and property, but to allow businesses to grow. right now, without the proper levees, farmers who want to put in a feed mill, farmers in my district that grow rice that want to put in a rice-drying facility and silo to store that rice or a cow barn for their dairy, find it difficult and in many cases impossible because the levee that holds back the floodwaters from their farm is -- does not meet the 100-year

flood standards set by the army corps of engineers and fema. therefore they can't build, unless they get insurance and the insurance program is unaffordable. we see right here that the growth in the agricultural section in my district is retarded for lack of maintaining those levees so they meet the minimum standards. this is something the federal government has played a role in forever, it seems, certainly for the last century and a half, the federal government has been involved in building levees to protect cities, whether on the ohio river, missouri,, mississippi or the state of california. so what are we doing today? we passed a water resources development act a couple of weeks ago. good for us. the senate has passed their bill. we need a conference committee.

the senate has named conferees. the house of representatives has yet to do so. all of that is good. we'll set out a good policy, one that sets the proper controls, one that has priorityization and make sure there is no waste, fraud and abuse and policies that would be funded by the american taxpayer. all good. but there is a problem. the problem is, where is the money to pay for this? it's not there. why? sequestration and severe budget cuts. we are actually seeing a very rapid decline in the amount of money that is available for infrastructure investment and for other programs that the federal government has carried out over many decades. we can put the best policies in police and unless we have the money to build these structures, then those farmers that want to improve their operation are not

going to be able to do so. so we ought to think seriously about infrastructure investment. in this case, protection from floods. the same thing goes for the cities in my district and across this nation. we know there is a big brouhaha going on around here about the increase in flood insurance. threefold lem, increase in certain communities. we didn't mean to do that, but it did happen. now we have to back that off. and as we back that off, we need to consider the fact, it's not just flood insurance, but the protection from floods. and so when superstorm sandy comes again will the east coast be prepared with the necessary floodwalls and facilities to repel the flood? only if we adequately finance the infrastructure investment,

in this case, for flood protection. highways and bridges. i don't know. there's probably several thousand bridges in the united states that you want to cross very quickly and don't want to be on that bridge with a very heavy truck. we have deficient bridges in every part of the united states. we have seen those bridges collapse with catastrophic results. people losing their lives. cars into the rivers, trucks into the rivers. these bridges have to be repaired. and we drive on any highway in the united states and you'll see some new asphalt or concrete, but will see a lot more potholes and see the deterioration of the highway system in the united states. insufficient money even to maintain, to repair in good state of those highways. goes on and on. where will we find the revenue? we are continuing to see a decline in the willingness of

the federal government, us, members of congress, to fund these programs. infrastructure, critically important in many, many ways and i have only dealt with two of those issues here tonight. i want to pick up on one that is the beginning of economic growth and that's research. i mentioned earlier that george washington deposit use the word research but used the word patent which comes from research being done by some individual or group that created a new product and got their patent on it so they could use it in the commercial marketplace and hopefully make a profit. so research has been around a long time. most of the research in the early days was probably mostly in the area of the military, done in part by the military dating way back, trying to upgrade their weapons. but beginning in 1860's, abraham

lincoln signed a law called the land grant college program and established across the united states a series of colleges and universities who had a specific function of researching for agriculture. . over the years that's become a tremendous research arm for the united states. i represent the university of california-davis which se -- which is the largest, most successful, most advanced, in total, i'm not putting down anybody else, agricultural research program in the world. there are a lot of other great programs out there, but in terms of size and reach, university of california-davis, way, way out front. so what other kinds of research are there? funded by the united states?

national institutes of health. how do we keep people healthy? what about disease, what about heart conditions, cancer, national institutes of health. national science foundation. noaa. dealing with oceans and atmosphere. nasa dealing with space. all of these research projects are fundamental to economic growth and all of them have federal funding. some of them with partnerships with state, some with private funding but these partnerships have created the foundation for economic growth. i had the pleasure of being at the university of california-davis earlier this last week. meeting with the heads of four departments, each of them engaged in a different kind of research, orte science research in some cases, water research in others, and everybody knows that california has its water issues and right now we're in the early stages of what i hope and pray is not a drought. so we have these researchers out there.

other research on health issues. all of them saying that the sequestration and the budget cuts that the -- at the federal government are severely impacting critical research that was about to mature into a solution for health problem, into a new way of conserving water or a new energy system using hydrogen or solar. but those projects that they are working on have been stalled and in some cases set aside. so the opportunity for economic growth coming from those -- from that research is slowed or stopped. we can't allow that to happen. not only is it immediate jobs but that's the research that will create future jobs. i'm going to give one example of the way in which research actually works out, together with regulations. regulations to protect our air. regulations to protect our water. the clean air act.

the clean water act. and other regulations, some of them now dealing with the issue of climate change. i'm a member of the clean climate caucus. and i want to just share with you -- it's actually the safe climate caucus, not clean. there are many of us who belong to this caucus. we're -- we're trying to say, we've got global warming. whether the tragic typhoon in the philippines was directly caused by global warming, i think it's no accident that we're seeing stronger and stronger storms just as predicted system of anyway, our safe climate caucus is concerned that many here in congress are trying to shut down commonsense, environmental protection agency guidelines designed to keep our air and water clean and healthy and to reduce the disastrous

consequences of climate change. these regulations can actually drive technological development and they can strengthen our economy. when those policies are paired th the entrepreneurship, the inventiveness, of the individuals and businesses out there, some really interesting things happen and jobs are created. last week i visited one such program in california, it's a program put together by a company that operates in my district and in san francisco, they are a recycling a composting and land phil, say fwar badge here, company, and they have a land fill, they're solved in some very interesting, innovate i ways to separate the waste and recycle, all to the good. but they have another project they teamed up with a company called g2 energy, and they put

in place a facility that takes the methane glass from the land fill that goes up -- that until now went up into the air, keep in mind methane is 20 times more potent than carbon dioxide. they put in a procedure to capture that methane gas, take it out of the land fill, put it in a pipe with a vacuum, run it over to a caterpillar engine, manufactured in america, it's a big marine engine that probably was driving some very large ship, but it now is sitting there next to the landfill, attached to a generator and producing an extraordinary amount of electricity. now that's innovation. and that's the kind of things that can be done. that methane coming off the landfill into the caterpillar engine, into the generator,

will replace more than a million gallons of deseal fuel that was once used to run that very same kind of engine. that's the kivende innovation that can occur when coupled with research and wise public policy. there are so many other pieces to all of this, and we'll talk about it in the days ahead, but one of the things i want to kind of wind up with is why it's important. keep in mind, trade policy, tax policy, energy, labor policy, education, research and infrastructure. these are the foundational investments that any economy must make if they want to see sustained economic growth. unfortunately, we're falling off the power curve on many of these policies. here's why it's important. here's why this discussion is important and here's why

manufacturing and growth in the american economy is important. these are words that franklin delano roosevelt put forward. he said, the test of our ogress is not whether we add more to the abundance of those who have much. it is whether we provide enough for those who have too little. we know that after the great meltdown in 2008 and 2009 that millions of americans lost their jobs. we also know that in the last five years, that the economy has come back, that additional wealth has been created. we do know that the gross national product of the united states which is its wealth, has grown. but what most people don't know is where that wealth went. that wealth went to the top

10%. about 95% of the wealth generated over the last five years has wound up in the hands of the top 10%, the most wealthy people in america. and so the words of franklin delano roosevelt come directly back to a manufacturing and jobs policy for the united states. if we make the critical investments to grow the economy , provide the infrastructure, to do the research, to deal with international trade, to think back to what george washington had in mind as the founding father. then we can begin to establish policies that grow the american economy, that re-establish america as the mightest manufacturing country in the world and in so doing, create those jobs for hardworking americans. go to work every day, want to pay their bills, want to have -- pay their house mortgage. buy the car. see that their kids get

education, see that they have an adequate health insurance program. if we do those thing, then these words of franklin delano roosevelt would begin to ring true. enough ill begin to add for those who today have too little. that should be our challenge. it's not our place to make sure that the super wealthy and the billionaires and others get even more. it's our place that those who struggle every day, many in poverty and the poverty rate in california is 25% or more, that those who struggle every day to provide for their family, that they have a chance, with a good education, with an opportunity to get that job, that middle class job, they have that and this country will prosper.

and the kinds of divisions that sometimes rake us over the coals and cause us great consternation an trouble will be abated. they'll never disappear, i have no illusions, but they'll be abated and they'll be less. that should be our goal. and as we approach the next fiscal crisis, just a month and a half -- actually just two months away, we should think about those men and women out there that i saw and i suspect many of my colleagues saw as they returned home and went to their district and went to all their meetings. who said, can you just give us certainty? can you stop the interminable fighting and the chaos that is causing us such concern? that's causing me not to invest in my business. just give us certainty. give us a program that builds the foundation so that my business can grow and prosper. give us the tax policy that has the proper incentives, not just

for those who have great wealth. but for those who are trying to grow their business. give us a trade policy that's fair to the american worker. fairer to the american business. that doesn't just give away this great country's wealth to some other company around the world. that doesn't encourage our businesses, our american corporations, to go offshore. put those policies in place so that we can grow the american economy, so that americans can have a decent job. and fulfill their own personal vision of the american dream. they can get on that ladder leading wherever they want it to lead, climb as high as they can, that the impairments and impediments are not there. we've got about two months to avoid yet another crisis. as we avoid it, i hope we keep in mind those things that create real wealth and real opportunity for all americans.

mr. speaker, i yield back my ime. the speaker pro tempore: the gentleman yields. under the speaker's announced policy of january 3, 2013, the gentleman from tennessee, mr. roe is recognized for 60 minutes as the designee of the majority leader. mr. roe: thank you, mr. speaker. we are here for the next hour to discuss the affordable care act with my colleagues and my co-chair in the doctor's caucus, dr. phil gingrey, a fellow ob/gyn doctor from georgia. i thank the gentleman for being here today. i'm going to -- we're going to break this hour up into several segments and talk about, number one, how the affordable care act was initiated, how it came to be, two, the promises that were made by the president and by the democratic party, about what the affordable care act would do, the failures which i

think are probably fixable of the website, i have said this, i mean, we certainly have, in 1969, put a man on the moon with a slide rule and a hand held adding machine, surely we can get a website to work in the year 2013. i think that will be something -- we can -- if we can't overcome that, we are in trouble. number four, i want to discuss something near and dear to my heart because i participated in this for years, medical education. we have a --ened and i'll go into this in more detail but we have a huge doctor shortage in america today and it's getting worse. a major university in my state, vanderbilt university, this past year that university has lowered their work forest by approximately 1,300 people, will be the end -- will by the end of the year. very disconcerting for people who lost good-paying jobs.

we haved hospitals in our region. we have layoffs in the medical area, also very distressing to me as a doctor and faculty member of the college of medicine at east tennessee state university, is that vanderbilt university is reducing their class size by 10% and reducing the number of by half. 's these are those who will research for disease cures in the futu. we know a vast number of our senior doctors are considering or have retired, as my own personal physician has done, due to the effects of the affordable care act. we'll discuss that in more detail and i think also we we need to discuss and focus on the new taxes and also on the effects on business and then lastly perhaps, it hasn't been

discussed much recently, the effects on medicare, quite frankly work 700 -- with $700 billion being cut from medicare, there's one particular part, mr. speaker, of this bill that dr. gingrey and i worked on closely together and the medicare portion of the affordable care act, it's called the independent payment advisory board. hasn't gotten a lot of press because it hasn't affected any seniors yet but it's a board, an independent board, independent of congress, that will determine how medicare dollars are spent. . i think that's one of the most egregious parts of this bill, when it comes to our seniors and we're adding 10,000 new seniors per day, each and every day, over three million per year, with a decreasing number of physicians and less money in that very needed program that needs reform. let's go back, dr. gingrey, approximately four years, when we were here on the house floor

debating this bill and the premise of the affordable care act i completely agree with which is to lower costs and increase access to care. that is a noble, noble goal to have. and i still share that goal to this day. there were three committees of jurisdiction in the house of representatives that looked at the affordable care act. the ways and means committee, energy and commerce, and the committee i serve on, education and the work force. those committees had a bill, brought forth by the house of representatives, was voted on, debated in the various committees, brought to the house floor and was voted on on a straight party-line vote. that particular bill did not include the ipab and some other things that are in the permanent bill, the so-called obamacare, or the affordable care act. the senate then voted on it christmas eve, i believe it was, 2009. brought a bill back over here the following month. we debated it again on the house floor for a very short time and

famously our then speaker said, we had to read the bill to find out what was in it. well, guess what i did? it's a 2,700-page bill but i felt like that a bill that affected every american citizen in a very personal way deserved my attention. so i read that bill. and the surprises that you're seeing now have been talking about now for 3 1/2 years, as have my colleagues on the doctors caucus and other on our side of the aisle. and many quite frankly recently in a bipartisan way. and the only thing bipartisan about the affordable care act was its opposition. i think some 32 democrats voted against that bill. so, it comes as no surprise to me when the president says, and we'll go over the broken promises in a minute, it comes as no surprise to me when the president says if you like your health insurance you can keep it. that wasn't going to happen. and why did i know that? and let's go over the promises

that were made. and this is number one, most universal coverage. ainled quote, this is the president saying this, it wasn't the president then, but this was in june of 2007. i will sign a universal health care bill into law by the end of my first term as president that will cover every american. that's a promise that hasn't been fulfilled. it does increase access by a massive expansion of medicaid and we'll go through the medicaid expansion in just a minute, about why some states chose to do it and why our state of tennessee has chosen not to and there are very good reasons why these governors have chosen not to. there are a host, a host of unintended consequences of this bill that we're dealing with today. the decreased payments to our hospitals have forced some of our rural hospitals and certainly where i live in rural america, it's put great strain on these hospitals. even the more medical major center areas.

i've talked to colleagues in indiana who have experienced the same scenario. so the broken -- the promises that were promised, there would be no new taxes on the middle class, here's the president's quote, i can make a firm pledge under my plan, no family making less than $250,000 a year will see any form of tax increase. not your income tax, not your payroll tax, not your capital gains tax, not any of your taxes. that was september 12, 2008. the third promise, and this is one that anybody who has studied health insurance and has dealt with it in private businesses knew was not going to be possible, was the outrageous claim that by the end of his first term, that premiums would decrease by $2,500 a family. i mean, anybody would know better than that that's ever run a bills. and this is a quote. will lower premiums up to $2,500 for a typical family per year, will do it by the end of my

first term as president of the united states, that was june 5, 2008. the next promise was there would be no increase in the deficit. no increase in the deficit. and here's the president's promise. i will not sign a plan that adds one dime to our deficits. that was promise number four. and the last one, promise number five, is if you -- you can keep your plan if you like it. here's the quote. if you like your doctor, which by the way i like my doctor a lot, i went to medical school with him, you'll be able to keep your doctor. period. if you like your health care plan, you'll be able to keep your health care plan, period. well, let me point out at the end of that period that people who work for me now in this congressional office have lost their plan. so that's not true. no one will take it away, no matter what. well, i certainly don't see that as being true.

the failure of the website rollout, we'll get into that a little bit later. that as i said is certainly -- if we can't build a website, i have no faith that this plan will ever be workable. i'd now like to yield some time to my good friend and colleague from georgia, and we've been joined by dr. paul broun also from georgia, family practitioner, but i'll turn it over now to phil gingrey from georgia. mr. gingrey: i thank the gentleman from tennessee, dr. roe, for yielding time to me. it is incredibly concerning that the obama administration has continued full speed ahead on a rollout of a system even after numerous warnings from vendors and from congress. the website has led to confusion in the insurance marketplace, as well as put consumers' personal information at risk to lack security protocols -- lax security protocols. even after the website is technically fixed, mr. speaker,

as dr. roe mentioned, and it probably will be, consumers will still face higher premiums and the likelihood that they will be unable to see the doctors to which they have grown accustomed. mr. speaker, i have heard from a number of my constituents in the past few weeks about the disastrous effects of the president's health care law. i will take a little time this evening to share with my colleagues a few of the observations from good, solid georgians -- georgians. tom, a georgia blue cross customer, told me his blue cross policy went up originally by about $50 due to the affordable care act. about two weeks ago i got a note that said my old policy no longer exists and my new policy will now cost $100 more. that's a quote from tom. dotti from metro atlanta told me

that her husband's employer was forced to drop their family plan and will instead offer them only two more costly options. either plan wine crease their premium by at least -- either plan would increase their premiumum by at least $160 a week, mr. speaker. a mother in my district told me that her young doctor's humana plan was canceled only two weeks after being promised that the price of the new plan would be locked down for a full year. mr. speaker, the president kept telling the american people, and this is a quote, if they like their insurance, they could keep it, period. and the period is part of the quote. it should have gone on as dr. roe suggested, until they can't. this promise has surely been broken. millions of citizens have received cancellation notices from their insurers.

they are now left with uncertainty over whether this new coverage will also be affordable. and speaking of affordability, mr. speaker, let me share with you a few other stories from constituents and then i'll yield back to the gentleman from tennessee because i know there are other members on the floor that also want to speak on this issue. mike told me that obamacare, quote, has been a financial disaster, unquote, for his family. it used to cost him just under $300 a month to cover his wife and daughter. on his insurance. but under obamacare, even that bronze plan, you know, there are four options, and bronze is the -- supposedly the least expensive, will cost him $700 a month and get this, mr. speaker, $5,000 deductible. it was form early paying $300 a month. if you like your insurance you

can keep it. and as dr. roe said, mr. speaker, everybody's premiums are going down on an average of $2,500 per year. not so, not so. teresa, also in my 11th congressional district of georgia, she and her told he had -- husband told me that their increased almost 40%. robert from metropolitan atlanta, again, a little part of my district, told me that even though they were underwritten in june, his wife's policy had 57 a ased from $387 to $5 month. that's a 30% increase. finally, before i yield back to the gentleman from tennessee, robin from atlanta received notice that her family's premiums lynn crease by 15% -- premiums will increase by 15% without any additional benefits.

i'll yield back to dr. roe and i look forward to continuing this discussion with my colleagues, as we go through the evening. and i thank him. mr. roe: i thank the gentleman for yielding. let me back up a little bit so that this is a little bit more understandable for people. typically in this country, and we had problems, there's no question we needed health care reform. i think everybody in this chamber, it's one of the reasons that the doctors you see here tonight ran for congress. we wanted to be part of the health care reform debate here. unfortunately we were not. there were nine of us in our physicians caucus on the republican side, during the health care debate, not one of us, not one was included in the debate on health care. not any amendment. we offered 80 amendments to my recollection to this health care bill and not one was allowed to be heard on the house floor and voted on. this would be a better bill if the other side of the aisle had simply slowed down, taken a breath, and let us help amend this bill.

people say now, well, phil, can't you just tweak it a little bit and help? no, you cannot. it is so complicated and so expensive, it is very difficult to do. now, this bill does do some things i like. i do like the under 26-year-old being able to stay on their parents' plan. the private market would have offered that. you also had a problem with pre-existing conditions. and i want to spend just a minute with that because it's not totally understood and not understood well by the public. we worry about us getting a pre-existing condition, losing our insurance and not being able to get covered. in america, about 160 mfl us get our insurance through -- million of us get our insurance through our employer, through ariza-based plans. the pre-existing conditions dnt effect those plans. you cannot be denied coverage, as my practice had an ariza-approved plan. you had to take everybody in the plan. number two, if you have medicaid and number three, if you have

medicare. it only left a small group market and the individual market and the uninsured. now, people are wondering, why did i lose my insurance coverage? in other words, i had a policy i liked and i'm going to tell you today, mr. speaker, one of the most arrogant things i think i've ever heard in my life i heard on tv this last week by several pundits and those comments are this, that your insurance is no good. i heard the president say that. well, look, not everybody can eat at ruth chris. some people have to eat at mcdonald's or have to eat at shoney's. they can't all eat at the most expensive one. but they buy what they can afford and what meets their needs. and the reason that the costs are going up so much are the following. in this bill there's something called essential health benefits. you don't get to decide what you buy for your family. the government decides what you buy for your family. and let me read this to you. because i want to you hear this very closely and see if you need all of these services.

ambulatory patient services. mental services. hospitalization. -- emergency services. hospitalization. absolutely. maternity and newborn care. well, i don't know about that. what is a single 30-year-old male need maternity care for? what do i need maternity care for at my age? i certainly have cold sweats thinking about that right now. mental health and substance abuse disorder services, including behavioral health treatment, prescription drugs, rehabilitative and devices, laboratory services, preventive and wellness services, chronic disease management, pediatric services, including oral and vision care. . if you're a family at an age where you don't need those things you plan probably doesn't hit some of those.

if you miss any of them, your plan isn't an approved plan. and a second reason you could lose your plan -- and this is where i challenge the president here tonight. i read the plan and understood by reading that plan if you changed anything in the bill if you changed your prescription drugs, changed your co-pay, changed anything significantly in that plan, you lost your grandfathered status. or if you didn't meet the essential health benefits. no one said that. if the president had read his own bill, he would have known that and would not have come out and said if you like your plan you can keep your plan because that clearly isn't true. or number two, as congressman curt schrader said today, we were misled. i think that's a term he used. either of those two things occurred, if that's -- if the president said you can keep your plan or he just did it for political purposes, which i hope he didn't do, because a t of people are hurt, 16,000

low-income, small business people in my state had a bill -- a plan called cover tennessee. wasn't the greatest plan in the world. it covered, i think, 12 doctors visits a year, all preventive services, an operation, it covered up to about $25,000, it didn't have lifetime limits, but 16,000 people had that. they could afford that. and many of them bought a catastrophic policy so they had something that cost more than $25,000, they were covered. so it was basic health insurance coverage. it did for them and their families what they needed. gave them some certainty and peace of mind. that's all gone. they've lost that. i have -- as dr. gingrey was pointing out a moment ago, he was mentioning some people in georgia, you can find this story from the atlantic to the pacific ocean. one story i heard this weekend, an employer of mine, he's a building contractor, he's

looked at his business, 110 employees, he said, phil, i think i'm going to have to pay the $2,000 fine. i can't afford what they're going to force me to buy. i can't do it and stay in business. i have an employee i know personally because she works in my office whose insurance is going from $400 a month for her family of three with obamacare plan if you like your plan you can keep it, to $800 a month. this is an employee who makes in the mid $50,000 rang. -- range. this is not somebody who is rich who can afford that that's a car payment or college education payments or whatever she wants to spend her money on. you can hear this story over and over again. 66,000 tennesseans got a letter from blue cross explaining that their plans didn't meet the essential benefits package in the individual market. that's one insurance company. this is going on all over. this business about the cost going down, i think will be on

the key bridge jumping in the otoe mac river when we finally get the bill for this. that's how expensive it's going to be. by the way, most people don't understand this. a lot of governors who read the fine print, our governor, bill haslem, wanted to expand coverage. wants to expand coverage but wants it tennessee done through market-oriented principles. one of the things we have had in tennessee with our health care coverage expansion is we went through health care reform in 1993-1994. we began tenncare. the tenncare plan, we had a problem with access and not enough people had coverage in our state. so we did this and within 10 short years, our spending had tripled and half -- almost half the people, 47%, i think, of the people who got insurance on tenncare dropped their private health insurance and got it through the tenncare program. what our democrat exgovernor did in the mid 2000's, because we have a balanced budget

amendment in our state, he had to cut with the approval of the legislature 200,000 people from the rolls. people say to me, dr. row, don't you think this bill will fall under etc. own weight? no, i don't. the reason is because the federal government can expand. we can print money here. if we had to have a balanced budget in this body we're standing in, i can assure you we'd be having a different discussion about the bill. one other things i want to read about the governors who signed up with this great deal with medicaid a program for our low-income people. i want to publicly state, the group i'm in, the group i was with, from the time medicaid became available until i left practice, we took those patients. medicaid patients. many of them we didn't get paid a lot of money but that's what physicians do, we care for people, uninsured and people who have policies like medicaid. but this now policy, the insurance policies must cover these benefits in order to be certified and offered in the

health insurance marketplace. states expanding their medicaid programs must provide these benefits, these essential health benefits to people who are newly eligible for medicaid. so that means at the end of the three short years that percent that the state has which is no guarantee, is going to be a large sum of money, much larger than i thought of after i started seing the premium encreases. the other thing that has been said out there, and i've heard it the last few years, republicans have no ideas about health care, about health care reform. there is a plethora of ideas on this side of the aisle for health care reform. and one that i happen to have right here in my pocket is a republican study committee called the american health care reform act, which i chaired the health committee that wrote this bill. dr. tom price, dr. broun has a bill, lue gome effort, others -- louie gohmert, others.

there's an excellent health care bill that's market centered, it does something that i think is essential for the american health care system to survive as we know et and that is to maintain the physician-patient relationship. this will tear that down because what does it do? so many people are going to lose access to their doctor and as there are fewer and fewer doctors out there to see you, the waits are going to get longer and longer and longer. i think that is the very fabric that's made us the system that we are, the envy of the world, where people come from all over the world. i think that can cease. when you see great universities like vanderbilt university cutting down on the number of doctors they're educating because of these cost constraints and cutting down on the number of young doctors that are going to m.d.-ph.d. programs that go into medical research and faculties in medical school, 10, 15, 20 years from now we'll suffer a great price for this mistake we've made right now.

i'd like to take the opportunity to introduce one of my colleagues from georgia, a family practice physician, dr. paul broun. mr. broun: thank you, dr. roe. the federal government is out of control. it has become too big, it is spending too much, it is taxing too much, it is regulating too much, it is borrowing too much, and it is sticking its ugly nose into our business too much. it has to stop. obamacare does every one of those things. as a medical doctor, i understand firsthand the disastrous effects of obamacare. and have been fighting from the very beginning to stop this terrible law. every day i hear from one of my constituents in the 10th district of georgia on how this law is hurting them. premiums are increasing.

cancellation letters are flying all across the state of georgia. and business owners are being forced to lay off employees. patients are finding that they no longer can afford their health insurance altogether. to share with you a few examples. one georgia businessman, the owner of several fast food restaurants, currently employees over 200 full-time workers. he recently told me that he is seriously considering letting them all go and hiring only part-time employees. this due to the burden of obamacare. a resident of henry county wrote to me that as an uninsured woman, with pre-existing conditions, she was looking forward to enrolling in obamacare. then when she went to sign up, she found that a quarter of her

income would have to be paid in premiums aloan. -- alone. due to the high cost she had no other choice but to remain uninsured. one man from monoroe, georgia, contacted me just last week to inform me that his insurance costs have increased by 800%. 00%. due -- 800%. due to obamacare a woman told me her husband's insurance that he bought from aarp -- through aarp has been canceled. to get another policy with the same coverage would cost him $150 more a month than what he's paying now this couple currently pays more in health insurance than what they pay for their mortgage. increasing their payments by an extra $150 a month would be a

tremendous, tremendous financial burden on them. sadly, this is just the beginning. it is expected that more than 400,000 georgians will lose their current health insurance due to obamacare. until we are able to stop this disastrous law, we will continue to hear more and more of these stories. as a medical doctor, i know what is best for my patients. that is why i have introduced legislation, h.r. 2900, the patient option act, it would repeal obamacare in full and put patients in charge of their health care decisions. where they can buy health insurance at a cheaper price than they are currently paying. my patient option act was endorsed by freedomworks in the last congress. my bill will make health insurance cheaper for everyone. literally cheaper for everyone. not like the president promised

us but he lied. it will provide access to good quality health care for all americans and it will save medicare from going broke. if americans want full control of their coverage, health insurance at lower cost, and the freedom to make their own decisions in health care, then the patient option act is the only true solution. it is clear that georgians and americans are hurting under obamacare. that is why i will not stop fighting to rip obamacare out by the roots and to replace it with reform that will actually lower costs, deliver care, and focus on the true needs of all american families. through the voice of we the people, demanding the repeal of obamacare, we can work to repeal it, to repeal obamacare

and replace it with legislation that serves the best interests of patients. not government. that solution is my patient option act. h.r. 2900. i yield back to dr. row. mr. roe: i thank the gentleman for yielding. i'd like to spent a few minutes now talking about the effects on businesses and how this will affect individuals. i serve as chairman of the health employment labor and pension subcommittee on the committee of education in the work forest and we've held several hearings around the country over the last two or three years outside of washington, d.c., we've held them in north carolina, evansville, indiana, butler, pennsylvania, lexington, kentucky, and others, and we've actually asked small businesses to come in and testify how this plan will affect their business. let me give you a couple of examples. we were looking at a small

textile owner in north carolina, i won't mention his name tonight but anyway, it's part of the public record but he has a business where he had supplied his business, he was self-insured, as many small knews any palities, large municipalities, many businesses are self-insured. it didn't look like their plans would be affected too much by the affordable care act, the obamacare bill. however, they have to pay a $63 fee per person insured, most people don't know this because it doesn't personally affect them, just the business owner, or in the case of my hometown of johnson city, tennessee that little bill is going to come to $177,000 next year. one major corporation which will remain unnamed came to my office and shared with me that their bill for that this year would be $25 million. let me explain to you about the small businessman in north carolina. he provided 80% of the health insurance, the employee paid

20% he paid all preventive services. if you needed a colonoscopy, your wife needed a mammogram, he paid 100% he had a nurse on site and a wellness program we he paid for. s the cadillac of all cadillacs system of what does he get for that? he gets a $63 fee for every single person he has insured. this year, the follow year it decreases and the following year. guess what that money is used for? that money is used to indemnify insurance companies so they'll provide insurance on these exchanges and will limit -- it's a stop-loss for them. that's how complicated this bill is. now i have had numerous businesses that are in the 50 rang that -- range that i've talked to and where we are, small business is the kingpin, the majority of our people are employed by small business. what incentive is there for a business to go above 50 when this arbitrary number was

picked? i have no idea to this day why 50 was picked. so what's magical about 50? well if you go above 50 employees, as my practice is, and you decide not to provide health insurance and you are now that costs you $2,000 per employee as a fine, tax, penalty, whatever judge roberts wants to call it. that's what it is, a tax, i assume a penalty or a fee, on those. many people are willing to pay that, businesses are, or if they are at 47 or 48, guess what they're doing? they're not going to 50 or if they need more employees, what are they doing? they're hiring part-time people. i can assure you, i've heard this over and over and over again about how businesses are cutting back their employees' hours to under 30 hours a week because now we define full-time employment as 30 hours per week. and i assume the only place 0 hours a week is full-time employment must be france because there isn't any place i

know of on the planet that 30 hers a week is full-time employment. certainly not in tennessee it's not. i would like to now yield time to dr. going rhee again mitigating circumstance friend from georgia, if he would like to have a few words to say. . mr. gingrey: mr. speaker, i thank the gentleman for yielding me additional time and i know there's another member of the house g.o.p. doctors' caucus that just joined us. i'll just take a moment, yield back to dr. roe so he can yield to dr. harris. but i wanted to take just a moment to emphasize what dr. roe was talking about, mr. speaker, in regard to these mandates. the affordable care act, we've found out now it's the unaffordable care act, but, mr. speaker, all of these mandates that are larded up into this essential coverage that the federal government is requiring

is the reason that indeed is the reason that the cost is going up. you can't include all those things that dr. roe was talking about without somebody paying for it. optionstalk about other and what we on the republican side, particularly the physicians, have offered in regard to alternatives. many states have a lot of mandates in their health insurance program and under current law you can't buy health insurance in another state. and so we have been pushing for years, the whole time -- the 11 years that i've been here, to pass what's called an association health plan where a group or even an individual can go on the internet and probably not have the trouble they're having with healthcare.gov. and find out that in tennessee, maybe there's a policy that fits them to perfection.

they're a 55-year-old single man who doesn't need infertility coverage, maybe their state requires it, he doesn't want to have to pay for that. so he can get a more cost effective policy that fits his needs to perfection. by buying that health insurance across state lines. that's something that the other side of the aisle has completely rejected and yet they have the audacity to say that we have no ideas, we have no plans, we have no alternatives. indeed we do. i yield back to the gentleman from tennessee. mr. roe: i thank the gentleman for yielding and before i introduce our next speaker tonight, my colleague from maryland, had dr. andy harris, who is on the faculty at john hopkins university, he's been a great member of the doctors caucus, i hope that dr. harris will address some of the concerns in his remarks about educating future young physicians. that's a great part of my life and certainly i want to see that

continue. i think one of the things that also struck me was in our college, how to affects things. we didn't think it would affect universities much but in our community colleges, i talked to a lot of them. many of them now are limiting their adjunct faculties. what that is is someone who's not there full-time but they may need a specialty in accounting or physics or math or whatever it may be and they may teach several classes. they now havely. ed those hours, those classes to simple -- they've now limited those hours, those classes to simply three per semester. because they have to provide benefits if they go above that. because our good friend the i.r.s. has determined for every hour you spend in class, there are two or three hours that is counted for preparation for that class. that's counted as work. so now community colleges are cutting back the number of hours students can be taught by this particular faculty member. the reason that's important is because the student may need a certain subject that's out

there, that this faculty member teaches, and can't get it and delays their graduation. we've had community college presidents tell me this can be the case in their community. the state of virginia has cut back to many part-time workers. and i think secretary sebelius was in front of our committee and stated that this was just basically the people just talking about it. and a supposition. and i said, that's not true. because people are making those decisions in lieu of what's going to happen. that's what businesses do. now, mr. speaker, i would like to yield to my good friend, dr. andy harris from maryland. mr. harris: i thank very much. i want to thank the gentleman from tennessee for yielding. the gentleman from tennessee's absolutely right. in fact, in maryland, in a front page article two weeks ago in our leading newspaper, the front page above the fold was a story about how maryland's community colleges are cutting back their adjunct fact toult make sure none of them teach more than 30 hours a week and it's just like

the doctor from tennessee says. some of these faculty are important. you've got to have them to fill in niches in your curriculum and now they're constrained by a 30-hour week definition of full-time work. and, mr. speaker, the fact is that, remember, it's not just when you hit 30 hours you have to offer insurance, you have to offer the insurance the government says you have to offer. and as i'm going to mention from literally dozens of communications i get now on a weekly basis from people in my district, the insurance under the affordable care act is anything but affordable. william in cecil county writes to me, and i'm going to read these verbatim, mr. speaker, my wife and me are currently ensured with maryland health insurance plan. now, mr. speaker, the maryland health insurance plan was our version of covering everyone with a pre-existing condition in maryland. so, mr. speaker in maryland -- mr. speaker, in maryland every

person had coverage whether they had a pre-existing condition. in fact, william writes that he and his wife were currently ensured that way. just received a letter stating we can keep our insurance, however, when i questioned them for how long, they said until the end of your current policy. so june 30, 2014, we'll be sent to obamacare. my wife has multiple serious health issues that our current insurance has kept her alive and able to function pretty normally. now, mr. speaker, william is worried and he's justifiably worried because every day we pick up the newspaper and we read about another state where you can't get to your doctor. your doctor is not going to be on that insurance plan because the only way they can make those premiums less expensive than they already are is to limit who you can go and see when you're sick. yes, mr. speaker, the government telling you who you can go and see when you're sick. and that's what william and his

wife were worried about in cecil county. but carl in queen anne's county writes to me, i have to put in my two cents when obamacare first started a couple years back. my health care started to go up. when we called blue cross they told us, you can thank mr. obama . it went up to $1,600 per month. now my wife does have stage four cancer, i'm a truck driver, i have to pay for our health care. so much for the care cost dropping. mr. speaker, i don't know if you remember, but our president's had -- said 19 times -- our president said 19 times that the price of a policy for a family was going to go down $2,500 a year. mr. speaker, carl is going pay $1,600 a month now. it didn't go down $2,500. it went up thousands of dollars year. tim from queen anne's county, i

guess writing tongue in cheek, thanking you for the new health care rules that have resulted in our family losing coverage from giant food. i am a general contractor had who after 22 years of coverage, with my wife, are now faced with a $1,000 a month bill to cover my family. $1,000 a month. not $2,500 less like was promised to us, 19 times, period. he goes on to say, i bet you still have your insurance. well, tim, we not only have our insurance, but because the president gave congress actually a special deal that you don't get. because you see, tim, if you got the same deal, your employer could be able to subsidize you on an exchange. that's the deal the president gave members of congress and their staff. sorry, tim. you didn't get that. fran from worcester county

writes, my care first blue cross policy has been canceled. i chose my policy. my policy was great. president obama promised more than two dozen times that, quote, if you like your health care plan you can keep your health care plan. now, this is fran's opinion, not necessarily mine. i believe that he knowingly lied. what are you going to do about this? fran, i got to tell you, i think it might be too late to do anything about it. this horse has left the barn. millions of americans have gotten their cancellation notices. millions more americans have gone on the exchanges to find out that their plan is not going down $2,500 a year, it's going up an average of, mr. speaker, $5,000 a year for the average family. a 41% increase on an average premium this year of $12,000.

andrea from hartford county writes, i just thought you might like to add my family to the statistics of the government's intervention in my perfectly fine 20-year-old care first blue cross/blue shield insurance plan. i'm self-insured. quote, hence the first to be and, mr. speaker, i'm not going to say the word here because of decorum on the house floor, when i am forced to accept the new nat knot as good, higher deductible, limited doctor choices, i will be paying an increase of -- this is what 197.5%.rites me, $19 -- mr. speaker, andrea's not getting a $2,500 a year cut in her family insurance plan. she's getting a 197.5% increase. mr. roe: will the gentleman yield? mr. harris: yes, i will. mr. roe: how do you answer to her that the pundits that we've

heard all last week and some of our colleagues here on the house floor, including the president, who said these were substandard plans that these individual plans were? i just heard you saw say, dr. harris, three or four times, that peerm perfectly satisfied -- that people were perfectly satisfied they met their needs. i yield back. mr. harris: thank you very much. reclaiming the time. i'll tell you about more. i'm more than happy to air is these things with the president. he wants -- happy to share these things with the president. if he wants to calm andrea, more than happy to have that done. andrea goes on to say, i'm not feeling the love. i believe the congress and the president should have to live under the same laws, rules, regulations that they insist i do. andrea, i couldn't agree more. i don't know why the president carved out a special exception for members of congress and their staff that they actually can get their employer to subsidize their plan when no other employer in maryland -- in the united states that employees 15,000 people, because, mr.

speaker, that's what the congress employs, gets that kind of deal. andrea, you're absolutely right. i think they should live under the same rules. that's why, mr. speaker, on september 28, on september 29, rather, we sent a bill over to the senate that said, you know what? no special deals for congress, senate rejected it. president said he'd veto the bill. he wants to keep that special deal. not for andrea, but for members of congress and their staff. he wants to keep that special deal. matthew in queen anne's county writes, tongue in cheek, i would appreciate if could you pass on my appreciation to the president for the obamacare legislation. thanks to the new law, my employee-sponsored health plan s increased my premiums by 100% for my family plan. so much for looking out for the middle class. mr. speaker, matthew hit the nail on the head. the president promised if you like your plan you can keep it.

period. you can keep your doctor if you like him. and your family's plan is going to be $2,500 a year less. mr. speaker, matthew's plan is going up 100%. how in the world can someone in the middle class afford that? how in the world can we ask our hardworking middle class men and women with a family to pay 100% more for their health care? we can't, we shouldn't. it gets worse. linda from cecil county. she writes, i have a genetic disorder called lynch syndrome that predisposes me to a number of cancers. she was born with a syndrome that makes her su september to believe cancers. i've had cancer twice in the last seven years. i was fortunate enough to be

covered by the plan we had in massachusetts. she was fortunate enough to be cover thsmed program was truly a godsend and i can tell you how grateful i was for it as i did not then, nor do i now, have employer coverage. i was not eligible for medicaid at the time because my unemployment benefits disqualified me. she received a cancellation of her policy effective december 31, and is advise shed should purchase insurance through the new exchange. but mr. speaker, i began trying to obtain insurance as soon as the ex-cheage open. though i was able to establish an account and application, i was informed that i'm not eligible for a tax subsidy because i'm eligible for medicaid. while many people might be happy to receive free medicaid it creates a nightmare for me. that's what linda in cecil county, write -- cecil county writes. the president's affordable care

act is creating a nightmare for her. she said, there are few specialists in her rural county so nearly all my doctors in delaware. sense they don't don't take maryland medicare, i can no longer receive treatment from them. that's a real benefit, mr. speaker, that linda got. i'll have to travel twice the distance to obtain all new doctors if i'm forced onto medicaid. mr. speaker, that's what the affordable care act is doing to linda. thank god. there but for the grace of god go i that i don't have lynch syndrome. she does. she worries every day about going to a doctor, being told she has cancer. and what the president's affordable care act told her, you can't go to the doctors you're used to going through, who guided you through those cancers, who have saved your life. we're throwing you into a whole new plan, medicaid, and you

can't go see your doctors anymore. that's heartless. that's just heartless. she goes on to say, mhp saved my life and i've had excellent insurance and care for seven years. mr. speaker, linda liked her plan and mr. speaker, she doesn't get to keep it. she doesn't get to keep her doctors. she gets to wake up every morning worrying about her cancer and whether she'll find a doctor who will take care of her, because she had those doctors, but she opportunity have them now. she had doctors close by, yes, she had to cross state line bus her health insurance covered it. her new health insurance dun cover it. mr. speaker, that's what this plan is doing. this plan affects each and every american in ways we are only beginning to understand. as was famously said, you've got to pass this bill before you know what's in it. mr. speaker, we're finding out what's in it. america's finding out what's

in. five million people found out this month what's in it. the cancellation notice for the plan they liked. these people had plans they liked. they weren't throwaway plans. they saved linda from cancer twice. every single american is going to be affected by this in ways we are just discovering. and america doesn't like it. mr. speaker, very simply, america deserves better. i yield back to the gentleman from tennessee. mr. roe: i thank the gentleman for yielding. >> if the gentleman would -- the speaker pro tempore: if the gentleman would suspend. members are reminded to direct their remark to the chair, not to the perceived viewing audience. members are reminded not to engage in personalities with the president. the gentleman is recognized. mr. roe: thank youing mr. speaker. i'd like to mention a couple of things -- i want to talk about this a little bit. we don't have a lot of time

left but it is extremely important. i know both my colleague thopes house floor tonight, mr. speaker, have taught in medical schools and we have a huge problem in this country with graduating enough doctors and educating them. let me give you an exampleful when you graduate from medical school, you're not then prepared to go out and practice. you need to do your specialty training or surgery or where it may be, or family practice residency a pry mear care residency. in my small town of johnson city, tennessee, we've lost about 50 primary care residency slots. that's 50 primary care doctors per year that are going to have to look elsewhere for a residency. last year, for the first time in my lifetime, we had over 1,000 young students graduate from medical school with huge debt that could not find a residency program. 1,000 students that are doing something this year before they can get into the residency they

need to train to be able to take care of us as patients. and we have the american medical association and others have said in the next 10 year, we'll have 90,000 too few doctors to see us. that means we wait longer and longer to see the doctor. and i think it's a tragedy that's out there that we have young doctors, i can't imagine grang waiting from medical school when i did, mr. speaker, and not being able to find a slot and the reason that's happened is, because medicare pays a certain amount, a cap that they put on, to pay for residencies to train young doctors. then hospitals and universities, through their endowments and other income, put more money in to help train doctors. what's happened is, because of the affordable care act, the hospitals are getting less money an they're having to look to cut. that's why they're cutting their staffs, that's why they're cuttingres. tency programs and delaying program. and folks let me tell you, down

treem, mr. speaker, this is a very, very bad thing for us in the health care of this nation. i'd now like to yield some of our last minutes to dr. gingrey from georgia. mr. gingrey: i thank the gentleman for yielding. i did want to speak about the young people. and i -- and i'm talking about those who have their 27th birthday, they're age 27 so they're not eligible any longer to be on their parents' health insurance plan. i have concerns over the effects of this law on these young people and i have warned for some time an even introduced legislation to insulate the young from rate hikes which are the direct result of these age ban provisions in the affordable care act. health insurance companies know, their actuarians know, they've studied they've gone to college, gotten masters, figuring egrees, in

out what the premiums need to be at different age bands and the federal government has come along in this law and said, well, it doesn't matter, you can't charge any more than three times the premium for, let's say, a 62-year-old versus a 28-year-old. and what that is doing, of course, is making the insurance companies just simply raise the premium for everybody. so they can possibly make a profit. and i just want to conclude with one thing, mr. speaker, and then i'll yield back to dr. roe for some closing comments but when this bill was marked up in 2009, in my committee, the energy and commerce committee, as it was in dr. roe's as well, i submitted an amendment that said, very simply, if you're going to cram the democratic majority party

and president obama, if you are going to cram this down the throat of the american people who don't want it, they've said they don't want it, 60% of them said we don't want it. but if you're going to make them accept this, then mr. president, you, your -- the first laity, your two beautiful daughters all of your cabinet members, all members of congress, should also have to abide by what we the people have to abide by, and that amendment, my amendment, was rejected strictly straightforward party line vote. all the republicans on the committee voted for it as a fairness issue and all the democrats voted against it. so what happens? republican senator put it in their version which gets in the bill but there is all of a sudden no subsidy. so therefore the president by executive order is saying that, oh, ok, these members are now in obamacare but because of their income they're not el swribble for any subsidy so

we're going to let them keep what the office of personnel management gives them, our tax dollars, 70%, to 75%, of the premium is paid by we the people to members of congress. that is grossly unfair. and i just want to make sure that all of my colleagues, mr. speaker, understand that. and i think they do. i yield back to dr. roe. mr. roe: i thank the gentleman for yielding. in conclusion, let's go back and look at why we need health care reform in this country. we needed it because costs were rising and we had a problem with access from many people. that clearly was true. there were problems with pre-existing conditions. we know that. republican study committee has a plan out there called the american health care reform act, it addresses all of these issues and truly does lower costs and does one important thing that i mentioned yerler -- earlier in my remarks. i think the patient-doctor relationship, medical decisions

should be made between a patient and -- a patient, a doctor, and a family. that's who should be making them, not the insurance company, not the federal government, you should be deciding what you purchase. we talked about a lot of complicated issues here tonight because this is a very complicated bill but it's important for everyone to understand it as best they can because it affects every american citizen and that is why us on the doctors caucus and the republican side of the aisle read that bill and tried to understand it because it was going to affect every citizenen -- citizen in a very personal way. we want to continue this discussion on the house floor. aye certainly enjoyed this one hour with you this evening. mr. speaker, i yield back the balance of my time. the speaker pro tempore: the gentleman yields. for what purpose does the gentleman from tennessee seek recognition? mr. roe: mr. speaker, see

nothing further business, i move to 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 adopted. accordingly, the house stands adjourned until 10:00 a.m.

so much about how they will not be able to do multi-ship responses because of the budget cutbacks. how much is this costing and is this something we will not be able to do in the future, or are we unable to do some response currently to the philippines because of budget limitations? >> thank you for your kind words. were ableistance we to provide, i do not have a precise estimate. this is a fast-moving train. our first priority is assisting the people of philippines. we will come to the cost estimates later. it does carry costs spirit i do not have the figures now. we are committed as a department and government to supporting had

r efforts around the world. ins has been a key priority the travels to the region, and it has been a focus elsewhere, such as south america. we are reorganizing this. -- prioritizing this. hadr is this point, critical in that we help we stand ready to assist wherever we can. i do not have cost estimates for you today, but we will develop those as time moves on. >> it took a couple of days for the orders to come. was there a cost related reason for that? will waiting for some particular request?