that goes into the refineries at wood river, illinois. the steel that gets processed at the steel mills in atlantaon, illinois and granite city, illinois. and the fertilizer that goes on the fields throughout southern and central illinois. there are several provisions in this bill that passed through the senate that we think need to be added to the house bill that would help those navigation requirements on the mississippi river. . additional we have provisions in the bill that would improve the levee system. the levee system is critical not only throughout my district, but indeed up and down the rivers because of the problems with flood insurance. i have families who have lived for generations in homes located near the mississippi

river and other cribtory rivers who because of the potential rise in flood insurance rates will be unable to afford to pay the insurance and unable to sell their homes, to relocate as necessary. so we need to improve those levees and by the way, while we're improving those levees, what are we doing? putting people to work. this bill is supported by multiple groups throughout our nation. and it is truly a bipartisan bill. it passed the house 417-3 and of 83-14. by a vote you can't get much more bipartisan than that. so, and when we look at the supporters of this bill, labor supports the bill, because they understand the importance of these jobs and they understand the importance of martime industry along that river,

excuse me, the chamber of commerce supports that bill, the national association of manufacturers, the american farm bureau, the illinois farm bureau, all support this bill because it's important to all of those industries, to all of those jobs. and it's not just the local economy of southern illinois. it's the regional economy, the national economy, indeed even the world economy. remember what i was talking about when the world's corn supply was down to less than 30 days. if we can't ship corn from illinois and iowa and the midwest out to the world, we have a very serious, very serious food problem. the bill provides provisions for the corps of engineers to maintain navigation on the river, to improve the navigation aids that were virtually useless during the drought. some of those navigation aids are simply lines painted on bridges. you know, those are navigation

aids that date back to the 19th century, back to the -- back to mark twain. and today i think we could do a little bit bet than painting lines on bridge abut thements, to provide navigation aids -- abuttments, to provide navigation aids for our martime industry. additionally, the corps at this point is restricted to working in the 300-foot congressionally mandated channel. so 300 feet going down the river that the barges transit through is the only place the corps is allowed to work. this bill would give the corps more authorities to work outside that channel, to ensure that we have safe navigation for those barges filled with oil and with fertilizer and other industrial materials. the bill would also provide for greater mississippi river basin extreme weather management study. today we don't understand how the river system operates. and we don't treat it as a

system. when you look at that map that mr. garamendi showed you of the river system, you see an entire system, you see the mississippi, the ohio, the missouri, the illinois. those aren't separate entities. but today in the law we treat them as separate entities. the missouri river is governed under completely different legislation than the mississippi river is. and the corps of engineers, even if everybody agreed, couldn't release water from those missouri river dams down into the mississippi river to help the naven -- navigation because they didn't have the authorities to do so. now, that doesn't make a whole lot of sense. and i think we need a commonsense solution to that. we treat the entire system as t is indeed, a system. another issue that we need to consider, the locks and dams. many of those locks and dams are 70 years old. they're in need of maintenance.

they're in need of improvement. those locks and dams, many of them are only 600 feet and for efficiencies they need to be 1,200 feet. in order to get the barge tows through. that will do several things. it will help the economy by lessening shipping costs, by making it -- making the cost of transportation for that corn, for that fertilizer, for that oil that gets refined into gasoline, dropping those transportation costs, making it less expensive to process and to buy. it would also be good for the environment. because by using bigger tows you're burning less fuel to ship the same amount of goods. and shipping by barge, in the inland waterways, is by far the most fuel-efficient method of transportation compared to either rail or trucking. so clearly for all of those reasons, we need to get this bill passed, we need it for --

remember my three issues? jobs, jobs, jobs. for southern illinois, for the region, for the nation. i yield back to the gentleman from california. mr. garamendi: thank you very much. sometimes i want to call you congressman, sometimes i want to call you general. but always we want to say that you really know the mississippi, you've served there in the national guard, providing the protection to the people. and to have a very good sense of what's necessary in that part of illinois and beyond. as you were talking about, the issues of moving goods and services up and down the great mississippi river system, ohio, missouri and the other rivers, there's about 1 -- $1.4 trillion, $1.4 trillion of goods that move down that river into the other ports across america and shipped out across the entire world. 30 million jobs. you were talking about that. you also raised a point that is very, very important. and that is, it's not just the ongoing jobs of the tug boats

and the barns, the grainries and all of that. but it's also the job of building the infrastructure itself. the men and women that are going to get out there and put together the new docks, the new levee systems. all of those things require man power and we know that there's an enormous benefit. every dollar that's invested in infrastructure returns well over $3 back into the economy. immediately. to say nothing of the long-term benefit that comes of having that new lock system in place, more efficient, longer locks, so as you said, more of those barges this just one tow line can work their way through the lock and not have to be broken up into smaller tow lines. a lot of issues in this piece of legislation, it's going to be an extremely important moment in moving the economy forward. and this is the first time in six years. it's been six years since the congress and the senate got

together to do a water resource development, reform and development program. why? well, i guess we just couldn't quite figure it out. but we have to do it this time. there's a need for a very, very serious reform in this system. we know that many of the projects that are undertaken, that the corps of engineers are working on, are forever trying to get in line and get in place. we know that many projects simply are derelict. they never should be built and so the bill removes $1 billion of derelict projects -- $12 billion of derelict projects that should never be built and replaces them with new projects that are critically important. some of those are the locks along the mississippi and the ohio system. and some of the other dams that are out there. for me in california, we know that these projects are critically important. the city of sacramento is one of the most flood-risk cities,

in fact it's number two in flood risk, probably number one now that new orleans has had an opportunity to have its flood walls rebuilt following the devastation of katrina. but now it's sacramento. a huge population and a very, very risky area, a population that i respect -- represent part of and share with congresswoman matsui, the city of sacramento. a little different than new orleans. when katrina came through, it was flood, to be sure, and terribly damaging. many, many lives were lost. but the water was warm. in sacramento, if the levees were to break on the american or the sacramento river system and flood that system, we're talking about very, very cold water. water that people would not survive in for more than a few minutes. because of the temperature and hypothermia. so we really need that build those levees. as i go into this task of being on the conference committee, where i will serve as one of the representatives of the house of representatives, i

will be looking at those kinds of projects that are really human life, the safety of my constituents and the safety of constituents all around this nation. where these levees need to be built to a high standard, many of them need to be prepared, in my district, the delta of california, many of the levees are over 100 years old and were never built to standards that would be applicable today. and so we have work to do. we have levees to build. we have ports to build. we have channels to dredge. we have jobs that will be created when we pass this bill and adequately fund it. one other thing that's possible here is not only will we create jobs directly in building the ports, dredging the rivers and channels, building the levees and repairing them, those are direct jobs, not only will we do that, we'll also have the long-term foundation, the investment necessary for future

economic growth, we will also, if we do one more thing and i hope to get this into the legislation, and that is make sure that there is a strong buy-america provision. this is going to be american taxpayer money that's going to be used for the steel in the locks, for the other -- the cement, for the pilings in the piers and probably the dredges that will be used for the channel. this is all american taxpayer money that will be used to buy and to maintain that equipment. if it's american taxpayer money, then by golly, you ought to be buying american goods. so buy america. use our taxpayer money to build the rest of the manufacturing sector of america. build our steel industry by buying america steel for the lox and pour the peers -- locks and for the peers -- piers and the cement and the other work that's to be done.

make it in america. very simple. use american taxpayer money to make it in america and to buy american goods. and so i'm going to be working very diligently on that conference committee to make sure that this buy america provision is strongly imbedded in the legislation. and know that if we are able to do that, we'll not only improve our levees, dredge the channels, build the ports, but we will also have the opportunity to make american jobs in the manufacturing sector. mr. enyart, you may have some thoughts about this or additional thoughts that you'd like to bring to our attention. if so, please have at it. mr. enyart: thank you, mr. garamendi. actually i do. i'd like to point out that the democratic motion to instruct conferees, as you pointed out, you serve on that conference committee, passed on november 14, with bipartisan support. and that motion encouraged the conferees to re-authorize an effective dam security program.

now, the goal here is to reduce risks, to people, to life and property from dam failure. with the age of some of these dams, and the aging infrastructure in place, the potential loss of life and limb and property is astronomical. and by putting money into maintenance now, we are saving not only lives and property, but saving money downstream, because we know that sooner or later, with the age of that infrastructure, that it's going to fail. so that's one of the important things that the democratic motion to instruct conferees did. now, additionally, mr. garamendi, i signed the bipartisan letter to the leadership, to the house leadership, of both parties, request canning a speedy conference report. we need to move this conference report. as you pointed out earlier, mr.

garamendi, this has been waiting for six years now. we can't afford to wait another six years. so we need a speedy conference report between the senate and the between the house so that -- and between the house so that we can merge that legislation, add the items that we believe are on the house bill, that need to be part of that senate bill, and vice versa, so that we can begin bringing these jobs back to america and bringing the use of these american products to our districts. you know, that letter emphasized the importance of wrda, not only to -- wrrda, not only to the district, but also the difficulties, which it imposes on business and on labor and on the trades, if this bill is not moved in a prompt manner. one of the other important aspects of the bill from my particular district that you were talking about, the sacramento river, but one of the particular parts of the bill that we want to see added,

that has passed the senate, establishes the metro east flood risk management program and what we're talking about there is the urban and industrial area in southwestern illinois, across from st. louis, running all the way from alton down through east st. louis, south to columbia, illinois, and it encompasses three counties -- counties, with the population of about 600,000 folks. so, it's very significant and it includes oil refineries, steel mills, chemical plants, residential areas and many of the bridges, both rail and passenger car that transit the mississippi there. . ment mr. garamendi: in california, we have those same issues. let me swap places with you, i . nt to put up a map

mr. enyart, you were talking about the central part of america and you can see it here as you were discussing the mississippi river system and your area up here in the illinois area, but in california , we think we're a real big state and we've got a lot of ople and this legislation is extremely important for california. i'm going to point out some of the -- san francisco bay, one of the great maritime bays in the world. we would argue none more beautiful and none more important than the san francisco bay. in and out of this bay flows a great amount of commerce through into theof oakland and

rivers, into the central part of california through the delta hrough the san joaquin river where international trade goes to the port of san francisco and port of stockton. because like illinois and the great midwest, we have a vast agricultural economy here in the central valley of california and a lot of that, particularly rice, goes out of the port of stockton and sacramento. both of those ports have channels that are sin sufficient depth to bring in the large ships. the cost of shipping, we have small ships that can't carry a full cargoo because of the depth of the channel. it gets more expensive. so in this area, channel maintenance, port of oakland, channel maintainance for the where f sacramento and the oil tankers come and go.

further south, monterey, which is famous, pebble beach. and then you get down to los angeles, and the two great harbors of america side by side together form the largest harbor system in this nation and you can argue whether it's the largest in the world. the port of los angeles, represented by congresswoman hahn and port of long beach, side by side there in the los angeles area, long beach represented by mr. lowenthal. those ports are one of the major engines of international trade and economic growth. and from those ports, those great cargos move on the railway harborsghways and other

in orange county and great harbor of san diego, which is important for the military. any time you happen to get to san diego, you will see the aircraft car years there from the u.s. navy and other critical equipment and ships of the u.s. navy. all of that is important. but here in my district -- i'm oing to put up another map dch and this is where i really get involved. this is a map of obvious san francisco bay here with harbor of san francisco, port of san francisco, the port of oakland and the contracosta coast but as delta. into the this is the largest delta on the west coast and one of the great inland deltas, more than 1,000 miles of waterways.

i represent half of that, sacramento river and san joaquin river and then coming down here in the san joaquin valley. these areas are all protected by levees. and the rivers are confined by those levees and many of them are more than 100 years old and they need protection. water flowing from the north across these -- through these waterways that are channeled by the levees through the great pumps down here, are delivering water to the southern california and san joaquin valley, depend upon these levees. this is part of the wrrda bill. these levees in protecting the water system of california and the great enterprises of the delta are critically important moneye wurh wrrda provide

for the continueance of these levees as well as many of the critical environmental habitats. as you move up the sacramento river, you come to sacramento and here the american river coming in with the sacramento river. and here is the highest flood danger in america and there is a project right here that is absolutely crucial to life and limb and as you move up, 200 miles from here to here, you marriesvillety and and those two are dependent upon the success of the wrrda bill. what we are going to do tomorrow and days ahead and my task to get the policy set. but the other side of it is the money. where's the money coming from? well, the austerity budgets that

have been such the prize of our republican colleagues really have stripped money away from the projects that we have been talking about, stripped money away from the maintenance of the ports, the dredging of the channels and protection and enhancements of the levees. that money has been stripped away. so with the first sequestration that took place about eight months ago, $250 million of money that the corps of engineers would have for the ports, channels and levees disappeared. that was sequestration one. on january 15, sequestration two hits with another $90 billion hit and we're not sure how much the corps of engineers will lose, but they will lose a vast amount of money. all of the talk and the energy we are talking about righting the policies, to improve and put

programs in place for the american economy, aren't going to happen. well, many of them aren't going to happen because of the austerity budgets and the two sequestrations. this is a critical problem, a critical problem. i would reach out to my colleagues both republican and democrat, and say there is money available, there is money available, but we aren't spending it in the right place. in the appropriation -- excuse me in the budget bill that passed the house of representatives a few months ago, there was an increase in the authorization well above what the president wanted to build and rebuild nuclear bombs. over $12 billion over the next decade for just one life extension program on a nuclear weapon. the b-61.

$12 million. it can be argued and i would argue this, that that was an extraordinary inappropriate place to spend money. we don't need that bomb for deterrence, i don't believe. the military may argue that we do, but they can never get enough of these things. my argument is that we need to spend the money where real, real danger exists. and that real danger exists on american rivers. where the levees are not up to standard. where the levees protecting new orleans are not up to standard. people died. billions upon billions were lost. in sacramento, if the levees aren't up to standard, billions will be lost. you have plenty of nuclear weapons for deterrence but spend $12 billion in a way that would be better spent on things that protect real people in real life situations.

we are making judgments here. first of all, we are making a judgment, i wouldn't say you or i, but our colleagues are making a judgment that they believe you can build the american economy with austerity, that is to cut the federal expenditures. i disagree. there are critical investments that the federal government should and must make. this is not new. often we hear the talk around here, the founding fathers. did you ever hear the founding fathers would do thus and so? we hear it all the time. the founding fathers, take washington and hamilton, shortly after he was inaugurated -- washington refused to be inaugurated in a suit made in england but made in america. in america.e tailor

and he said i want america to build the infrastructure. hamilton came back with a program, a couple of hundred pages at the most and he said we need america to do the following things, to build the american economy and american manufacturing base. he said, one, we need to build ports. we need to build canals. and we need to protect american industry by using american taxpayer dollars to buy american-made goods, and he said, beware of trade policies. hamilton and washington wanted trade policies that protected the american manufacturing sector and american agriculture. interesting, the next few days or the next few weeks, we're going to have the question of

trade policy before us here in the house of representatives and likely to be the transpacific trade program. what is it? well, they want to fasttrack it where not one person on this floor will say, we ought to change this or change that. we ought to be paying attention to the founding fathers who said watch trade policy. protect american jobs. as we go through all of this in my district, we are going to have to have the money. american taxpayer money, plus a lot of local taxpayer money to protect the citizens in my district and the ports, about $1.8 billion is collected at the ports to rebuild, to dredge and to maintain the ports. about half that money is

siphonned off for other projects. no more sequestration. this nation cannot afford that terrible policy of sequestration, because it will rip the heart out of the critical investments that america has to make. i ram bled off, but mr. enyart, would you like to pick it up for a while? mr. enyart: thank you, mr. garamendi. what we're really talking about here, mr. garamendi, is are we spending money or are we investing in america? i like to tell folks at home that, you know, when that roof starts getting old on your house and you know those shingles need to be replaced, do you want to replace those shingles and put a new roof on that house before it starts to leak? yes, you want to do that, because you are going to save

the money when that roof starts to leak. we are talking about investing in america. we are talking about investing in our house, investing in our home, protecting that infrastructure, protecting that roof before it does begin to leak. and you know, it's interesting, you were talking about how money gets siphonned off and this bill does change that. this bill would increase -- you know, we have a special fund that is supposed to go to the maintenance of harbors and ports and this bill would increase the investments in improving our nation's ports by increasing the percentage of the money that's collected each year through the harbor maintenance trust fund. it's unfortunate, but half of the money that is collected to maintain harbors gets siphonned off and gets spent on other things. now, i believe and you believe,

we believe and the folks who voted for this bill believe that we should spend that money for the purpose for which it's collected and that's to maintain and improve our harbors and our ports. now, you know, some of the democrats on the committee have said that the bill is a compromise -- some of the folks n't like some of the environmental reviews, but you know, we voted for it. we pushed it forward, even though it was a compromise, and sometimes in this business, you have to give a little to get a little. i talk about it at home, when you buy that new pickup truck, you want to pay one price and the dealer wants one price, to get in the middle you have to compromise. mr. garamendi: there are things in the bill i would have written differently. in the conference committee there are differences.

some of this you mentioned, the environmental issues, some of them are controversial, but there is a major part of this bill to speed these projects forward and hold the corps of engineers responsible for getting things done. they have three years to do the $3 million to nd get the study done and their feet will be held to that commitment to get those projects moving forward. there is a lot of reform here in the bureaucracy of the way the system has worked. there is a lot of reform in this in allowing the local partnerships -- all of these programs are partnerships. partnerships with the local governments, as you described earlier, local levee districts and the like, those partnerships under present law, have a difficult time to start a program early to get it going without the corps' permission. and so what we have, we have

crediting and allows the local governments and local ports to begin a project. eventually there is a whole new process on which projects will be done. we aren't going to do earmarks. there are no earmarks in this legislation and no earmarks allowed in the future. there is a process to prioritize it across the nation and congress is taking back some of its power to set the priorities for the nation. . . that crediting, we're going to want to move that forward. in my district, because of the austerity budgets and the sequestration, many necessary probablies are not allowed to move forward, -- probablies are not allowed to move forward but -- projects are not allowed to move forward but a little tweaking of this language will allow these projects to go forward and then the local share would be counted if and when, if and when the federal gort government, the corps of engineers actually decides to make that a national project. so this is going to be very important, probably important in your area, some of the

levees in your area that are maintained now by the local levee districts and flood protection districts. so, we spend a lot of time in our house and the senate has also, we're going to have to work out some of the differences, some of the compromises, not so much democratic and republican, but some regional differences. and some differences about how the system should work. so we'll work on that. we've got about another five, seven minutes. so if you'd like to wrap and then i'll wrap and i'm going to do something that's not too common here. i'm going to take this ball of -- some of this international trade and i'm going to toss it to my republican colleague and we'll let him bat it around for a while. mr. enyart: wonderful. you know, mr. garamendi, while you were working on that conference committee, i really appreciate if you could see fit, and this goes back to the environmental piece a little includes enate bill

the middle mississippi environmental pilot program, which gives the army corps of engineers authority to restore and protect fish and wildlife habitat along the mississippi -- middle mississippi river while they're undertaking navigation projects. right now they're just constrained, working on navigation. well, doesn't it make a lot of sense, by the way, while you're working on navigation, to also, when you can, improve the fish and the wildlife habitat? you know, and in southern illinois, fish something a big sport, we have a lot of tourists come in, hunting, goose hunting is a big sport, dear hunting. if you can improve that wildlife habitat, it's going to help the environment as well as help our tourist economy in southern illinois. how to, -- now, that was part of the bill i introduced but it got stripped out before it passed the house but it did pass the senate. so as part of your conference, if could you help me out with that, i'd appreciate it. mr. garamendi: this is what we ought to be doing which is looking at these issues and

maximizing the potential and the benefit that comes from a project. let me give you another example of the same thing and it's along the environmental line. right now the corps of engineers, in dredging in the san francisco bay area, let's just say the port of oakland over here, when they dredge there, they have to use the cheapest way of disposing of the dredging materials called spoils. hey have to basically take it, mostly sand and clay, they take it out here to alcatraz and they dump it in alcatraz and the tide takes it out past the san francisco golden gate. well, we're saying, wait a minute, that's extremely valuable material to build abitat in areas that have been despoiled over the years, for example, down here in the southern part of the bay, these were great salt flats were the salt industry used the bay to

evaporate the bay water and get salt. well, those need to be restored and it's quite possible that the material from the dredging could be used in that way or another habitat program, even up here into the delta. but it's not the cheapest. so we're looking at a little tweak here that would allow the port of oakland or the other ports in the san francisco bay area, and really around the nation, to do an environmental project along with the dredging project. very similar to what you're talking about on the mississippi river. so i see common cause here. i see common cause where we can maximize the total benefit for the nation. it could be an additional cost that the port will have to pick up. ok. but we get a two-fer. we get environmental benefits as well as the economic benefits of the port. you got any other things on your list? mr. enyart: i'll just close out with saying, mr. garamendi, i thank you for the time this evening, but i think this has

been a true team effort from manufacturers and business groups, labor unions, port authorities and the agriculture committee. you know, i sit on the agriculture committee and the ag community knows how critical this legislation is for illinois. and congress needs to get things done for the american people. and no job is more important than keeping our economy strong right here at home. thank you, mr. garamendi. mr. garamendi: thank you so very, very much, really appreciate working with you tonight on this critical issue of the fundamental investment. let's just remember, this is not new. the army corps of engineers has been around since the very earliest days of our democracy. the army corps has been responsible for the waterways of america and the water resources reform and development act is going to be an opportunity for america to really move its infrastructure, particularly the trade, remember, just review, we're

talking 13 million jobs immediately depend upon the water resource reform act. we're talking about 99% of our trade travels through our ports and waterways, whether it's on the mississippi, the sacramento, the san joaquin rivers or the great ports and the water -- and the coastal part of america. it's critically important. and as we do these things, we have the opportunity to reach back into the history of america and remember what the founding fathers talked about way back in george washington's very early days. that these fundamental investments in what they called canals, ports and roads, were critical to the growth of the united states at the very, very outset. and george washington and alexander hamilton also recognized the importance of international trade. and that we get those trade policies correct. and so as question get ready to

do the water resources reform and development act, which is critical and the conference committee starts tomorrow and i have the honor of being on that conference committee, we also think about the way in which the trade of america is depended upon our work in getting sound policies in place and it's also critically important in dealing with the issue of international trade agreements. whether it's the transpacific trade program or the new one that's being worked on with europe, we have to protect our own jobs, we have to protect the american economy. and in doing so, we must carry out our constitutional responsibility. given to us by the united states, us, the representatives, and the senators, the constitution says that it is the legislature, ongress and the senate, that shall set trade policy that requires that we have the opportunity to look at the details of every trade policy

and not fast track -- trash through the house -- fast track trash through the house. joining me and taking up as i wrap up my hour is my colleague on the republican side, why don't you take my last couple of minutes and then you can have your half hour or hour. >> first of all, let me thank the gentleman for yielding to me. i know it's a bit unusual when democrats and republicans come down and share portions of their time. i think it's actually what the american people want a little more of. we should do this more often. i'm giving a talk in a few moments on health care. you and i will probably disagree on some fundamental philosophical approaches to that. and that's fine. you're in one party, i'm in another. you have your own inclinations, i have my own inclinations and approaches. but to try to work constructively toward problem solving, i think it would behoove us all if we can figure out a better pathway to do that. that's why i'm grateful to you for just lending me a few moments. mr. fortenberry: as i was listening to your speech, you talked about something that i did not know, that george washington refused to wear a

suit made in england and said -- and went back and said, give me a manufacturing policy for this country. and it was a very curious but good story to demonstrate a particular dynamic that, as you rightly pointed out, is part of our modern-day debate about how we do trade agreements in the fast track authority. i think we have to be very, very cautious about this. trade can have the potential benefit to raise all boats. it has to be fair, it has to be -- has an element of free but it has to also be enforceable. and there are other dynamics to trade other than the economic benefit that should be measured, such as the human cost of production in various societies and we've glossed over those things in the past. so i just wanted to commend you and thank you for raising this issue of giving basically over our authority by saying, we'll vote to deny our authority to review the fullness of a trade agreement should one come

through to us, i think that's a serious concern. so i want too commend the gentleman for raising the issue -- so i want to commend the gentleman for raising the issue. garr depar thank you so very much. i -- mr. garamendi: thank you so very much. i look forward to working with you on that issue. we don't know when it will be coming but they're trying to wrap up our trade -- our ambassador is trying to wrap this up and present it to us and talking fast track and i'm going to time-out, guys, time-out, we need to review. we need to make sure that it's fair trade, not just free fair to fair trade, the american worker, fair to the american manufacturer, farmer and the like. mr. fortenberry: i think we ought to call it smart trade. mr. garamendi: i like that, too . can we compromise on that? i yield back the balance of my time. thank you very much. the speaker pro tempore: the gentleman yields back the balance of his time. under the speaker's announced policy of january 3, 2013, the chair recognizes the gentleman from nebraska, mr. fortenberry, for 30 minutes. mr. fortenberry: mr. speaker, i ask unanimous consent to revise and extend my remarks.

the speaker pro tempore: no objection. mr. fortenberry: mr. speaker, thank you for the time. i don't have to tell you all that there is a debate raging in our country about the future of health care. i want to share, first of all, a story that i received by email from yvonne who lives in the town of firth, nebraska, right near me. she says this. five farming family of in southeast nebraska and recently received notification from blue cross/blue shield of nebraska, an insurance company, that our insurance premiums are increasing from $578 per month to $1,092 per month. that's $514 more, resulting from the misnamed affordable care act. yvonne goes on and says, even if i play with the numbers and drop our family income to be eligible for subsidies, my family has never needed government assistance in the

past to pay for health insurance. why should we need it now? other than washington's interference. would you please tell me how i am supposed to find an extra $500 in my monthly budget to afford this new, improved policy? mark, who lives in lincoln, he says he's 49, he said he had his insurance canceled and he had a very good policy. and this is what he had to safe. quote, i had a $5,000 deductible policy and after that everything was covered. my policy was not a junk insurance policy. and it was canceled. mr. speaker, many americans are awakening to sticker shock and are feeling frankly very betrayed. by their earlier comments that if you like your health care lan you can keep it. now, clearly there is a stig problem here and what is --

there is a significant problem here and what has happened? mr. speaker, we need the right type of health care reform. health care that's going to reduce costs and improve outcomes while also protecting vulnerable persons. but what we've gotten instead through the new law is a shift of cost to more unsustainable spending by government, a shift of cost from one american to another, and we also have a serious erosion of health care liberties. another email that i received from joan and talked about her son and maintained her son's policy, a young man, in case of a catastrophic event so it would not be a burden to the hospital. she says he doesn't make enough money to pay taxes, his premium my sonom $85 to $220, so will not have any more insurance. his policy includes maternity

this is an nd insurance subsidy from my son to others. now this young man is 30 years old. i don't know the circumstances of the family as to why they are providing the policy for their 30-year-old son, but the family is trying to do the right thing and help one another, but they are being forced by escalating costs to reconsider the very idea of carrying health insurance themselves, doing the right thing. mr. speaker, when i was a much younger man in my 20's, i had an individual insurance policy that i bought. i thought it was the right thing to do. i didn't want impose my health care needs on the rest of society, pretty big burden for someone to carry for someone in their 20's, i decided to raise the deductible to $1,000 to help

better manage the cost. one day, i had a very severe headache and it didn't go away and as this went on, it was necessary for me to seek medical attention. thinking about it, i bypassed the family doctor assuming they would put me to the ear, knows and throat doctor and saving myself $50. when i got there, she examined me and took an x-ray and afterward, the doctor said i can't tell from the x-ray what the problem is, i need to do a ct scan. i interrupted her and i said, doctor, i understand if you might be worried about my ability and there might be this test that is normal protocol for you to run. e said, why are you saying

this to me? i said i'm paying for it. i had the $1,000 deductible. and she said, well, oh, let's think about this. she said i'm only looking at your sinuses and probably ask one of two entities if they'll widen the cross section and see if they will give you a discount. she asked her assistant to help. they called both places in town, found the price and found out if they would lower the price based upon a cross section of this test and one of them did and i don't remember the exact amount. $75. k it was i saved $75 by asking a simple question. the doctor got the test she needed and the community resource was properly allocated because i had the incentive to watch the cost. this is one of the problems that

we have here in the whole health care debate because in the affordable care act, sometimes called obamacare and there are a lot of people who want to move away from that expression, it emed to me to be a bit disrespectful towards the president. the affordable care act shifts cogs to more government spending and moving cost from one individual to another. how did we get here? you remember in the bush administration, the number was being talked about that there were 50 million americans who were uninsured. been a while since i looked at that statistic, but from memory, as i recall, that was an aggregate statistic that reflected the number of people within a year who had some trouble accessing affordable quality health insurance. it wasn't a snapshot in time, so the number might have been bigger than what was suggested,

but it laid the groundwork of where we are now. president obama and the administration used that number as well. when you look at the numbers more carefully and look at americans who were having problems accessing affordable, quality health insurance, whether because of pre-existing condition or some other issue, that number may have come down to perhaps 10 million to 15 million people. that's a lot of people who need help. and the right response is to that in a policy debate will help them access affordable quality health insurance. we have done so in turning the health care system inside out d many americans are feeling betrayed and soon many more will be receiving the price shock who have employer-based insurance because of a couple of factors,

and what are those factors? first of all, in the new law, what has happened, there is a shrinkage of the age ratio, used to be six, now it's three. that means younger people are subsidizing older people. and you could have a debate about the merits of that, but that is one of the cost drivers. there are new types of mandated benefits. you heard it in the emails i received. a young man who is having his insurance rates are skyrocketing. in nebraska, we have one of the highest rate increases for single males, second to arkansas, 220-plus percent. why is that? we are a somewhat less regulated state, but that created market conditions where a young person who was relatively healthy could get a policy that protected them from catastrophic incidents if

hey were in an accident are an unfortunate disease happened to strike them. they were covered them. it is pushing those policies that people are questioning as to whether or not they can afford it, a policy designed to help those are hindering those to purchase insurance. he mandated issue -- a gentleman pointing out i don't need maternity services. after us deciding what is a reasonable set of basic coverages that are necessary. the third is no denials. this one is a little bit more sensitive, because we do have americans who are being helped by this law and who had previously been either denied because of pre-existing conditions or for one reason or

another, problems accessing their health insurance. going into the debate how to reform the system and get this right, it is necessary we carry forward either this way or another way, used to be the government subsidy of high-risk pools in which allowed people to have access to more affordable insurance or where we absorb the cost across insurance policies that we take care of people who rightfully need access. and so there are few embedded pieces in this affordable care act that do make some sense. the first one is allowing young people to stay on their parents' insurance policy. i supported that. helps the concept of buying

insurance at a young age and creates a morrow bus marketplace. second, dealing with people who have pre-existing conditions and there are a lot of ways to do that, subsidizing the marketplace or absorbing the cost of all insurance products. the third issue was removing insurance caps for those who actually bumped up to their total maximum benefit. i know of families that are struggling with a severe disease condition who would meet their insurance cap and their response was, they had to leave one job and go to another job to basically start the clock over. it doesn't save the system. those are three aspects that makes some sense, but we did not have to do so by turning the entire system inside out in harming large numbers of americans who have been doing

the right thing, protecting themselves and not relying on society for the costs of health care risks, who were trying to find the right product but have lost access to basic products, which will lower costs for younger people. that is a very strong disincentive for young people to young people to enter into the insurance market. it is part of our responsibility for those of us who have said no to the affordable care act who have said there are better ways, to start laying out specifics. we ought to try to agree that the health savings account idea is a way in which we form a hybrid model that actually benefits the marketplace, benefits individuals and retains the robustness of what private market competition can give you.

now, let's take, for instance, the case of the surgical procedure called laskiks. trying to of them correct vision. large number of americans have been helped by this extraordinary technological invention and appears to me from a look at that market that prices have fallen, outcomes have improved and the doctors who do this surgery do pretty well with basically no insurance involved. let's look at this hybrid model here we retain the subsidy accounts and they accumulate monies that go toward their first dollar health care costs and taking better control over those first dollars that are extended. mr. speaker, i recently had a

medical issue. i had a sore spot on my ear. i didn't think much about it but after three weeks after it having been there, at my age, i thought it was good to get it checked. i went to the dermatologist and he thought it might be cancerous. and he said i'm going to put you on a medicine and get started now while we wait for the bio pmpsmp y to come back. i went to the pharmacy to get the medicine and my co-pay was $5. it was easy and i'm thankful i had the insurance to do this. $5 and i asked the doctor, i said how much does this medicine cost? he said i don't know, let me check. $500.d it's

i said this is friday. i'm not sure on monday if i'm going to need this medicine or not. maybe we just ought to wait and i chose to wait. on monday, the doctor called back and said it's benign, not cancerous, you don't have to take that medicine. i had no incentive not to take the medicine. the doctor didn't think through that question with me and didn't have to because my co-pay was $5, again i'm grateful for that. the point being $495 of waste would have occurred had i not simply asked the question. and i didn't have any incentive to ask the question, i wanted to make sure we weren't using that much medicine before it went to waste. and i turned it down. if you have your own health savings account which is coupled with a catastrophic policy, two things are occurring. you are controlling your first dollar cost. you have an ordinary

conversation. is this a test and pathway we need to go. who can provide those in town. maybe at a cheaper rate with the same quality. for that, we need transparency, though, in medicine. part of the market reform that needs to occur. if something goes wrong and you in the hospital getting rolled into an operating room, you shouldn't have to pull off your mafpk and say, can someone give me the price of the medicine around here. that's not the point. with catastrophic insurance, you should be protected without having to worry about those market dynamics. this is a good hybrid model where the you put money aside in a taxpayer account which can accumulate over time. most people don't get sick overtime and this could grow to a substantial amount and could be a supplement in retirement or supplement to medicare.

we have long-term costs problems in medicare. thinking creatively as we restructure health care and give ing improved opportunities for a robust marketplace for health insurance that just doesn't con sole dade the marketplace into fewer and fewer companies, what is happening now, this is becoming a utility companies that work with hospitals and that's it. and the government will have a role in setting rates and that's it. you lose the dynamic of the competitive model for the insurance market while protecting people's access, we should allow them access and not be denied for pre-existing conditions and there are a lot of ways to do that. if we do that, we can retain and keep the market dynamic basis for controlling health care costs of the we do this in all other areas of our life and it's normal. no reason we have to put on

blinders when we are dealing with ordinary health care costs and submit to the system. there is no reason for that. if we inject this sort of competitive marketplace for ordinary costs, competitiveness in the marketplace for ordinary procedures and drugs, you could see lasix surgery, prices falling, innovation occur and the health care system making reasonable returns for their efforts. . . many doctors are frightened of the dynamic of the affordable care act. there are many doctors who are saying they're not going to be able to afford it take in any more medicaid patients -- medicare patients. we have this problem already in medicaid. we have a market where costs are falling an health care outcomes rim proving. the health savings accounts gives people the opportunity to

control that first-dollar cost but if they're really sick or have an accident, they're protected and don't have to worry about the costs. that makes a lot of sense to me, mr. speaker. and the affordable care act, unfortunately, though, what we have is a dampened of the marketplace for the health savings account idea. it ought to be exactly the opposite. now, there's a reasonable argument that some have made that this is not appropriate for people who are older, who do not -- who have increasing health care costs and don't have the time to set enough money aside to meet their normal, ordinary expenses. fair enough. but it is an important model that we should be eagerly embracing for the young generation. so that they can have affordable, quality, catastrophic insurance. that they have incentive to move into the market, that the market reresponds to their questions as to why does this cost this much, who is providing the best service, does this really make sense? with us simply trying with the diminished marketplace, with a

lack of incentive to actually watch those first-dollar costs, as the health saves account gives us, then there isn't really those incentives to, again, force transparency and ask simple questions as to how you best manage the resources that you have, in partnership with the medical community, like i did when i was trying to reduce my own costs for that cat scan and the doctor very willingly accommodated my request and that community resource was better allocated. to me that is a commonsense solution that we all ought to be embracing. but instead what we have now is again a huge shift of cost to more unsustainable government spending and many americans being disproportionately hurt because of skyrocketing premiums or they're losing the health care that they were promised they could keep. that's simply not fair. there is a better way to fix the system. and the last few weeks, because

of the problematic rollout of the marketplace website, the exchange as it's called, it has brought more and more attention to this issue. now, it's my hope, mr. speaker, that we just don't get into finger pointing, we told you so, or for those of white house are against this, but that we actually sit down and try to construct something that is much more reasonable and fruitful for the entire system. mr. speaker, the formal definition of a law is an ordinance of reason given by those in authority for the common good. you have a real question here as to the reasonableness of this law, because it is so unfairly and disproportionately hurting a lot of people. and whether that meets the definition of it being for the common good. there are aspects to the current law that we can retain as i suggested, keeping young people on insurance longer, removing the caps on insurance, and protecting people with pre-existing conditions, those should be retained, i feel. but as we move forward with a

robust debate, we ought to keep in mind, let's do everything, let's do all we can, give america a better path forward, the path that they deserve, so that health care meets the true definition of a truly just law, any health care reto form meets the deaf -- reform meets the definition of a truly just law and it promotes the common good which means society's well-being. and what does that common good look like? it's a vibrant marketplace for affordable quality insurance. persons who have had a condition shouldn't be denied. there should be a dynamic where the person who controls their first-dollar costs, because they own those dollars, and they are protected if something really goes wrong through catastrophic policies. that shift of the health care paradigm could lend itself to the right type of reform for the next generation for medicare, for instance. if you've had a huge savings

account accumulate over time, because you're not one of the unfortunate, one of the majority of people who fortunately does not get stricken by something serious, over your lifetime, then you'll be able to potentially use that money for your own well-being and retirement or as a further supplement to the medicare program. this is what's called thinking outside the box. instead of -- let's think dynamically as to how these programs can mutually reinforce one another. current health care reform and our important health safety net and retirement. that's what we ought to be thinking about. and so, mr. speaker, i just submit these comments this evening because i think it's important to try to unpack what has gone wrong and why the frame -- to frame the debate in a manner that's constructive, so that america gets the type of health care reform that we deserve, a robust health care system that leads the world, that improves health care outcomes while reducing cost, but also protects vulnerable

persons. i yield back. the speaker pro tempore: the gentleman yields back.

the speaker pro tempore: for what purpose does the gentleman from nebraska seek recognition? mr. fortenberry: mr. speaker, 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 10:0

i struggle with the disease of alcoholism and this led to an extremely irresponsible choice. as the father to a young son and husband to a loving wife, i need to get help so i can be a better man for both of them, end quote. on the house floor this morning, minority whip steny hoyer said the house-senate budget conference committee is not making progress he said the chairman of the house budget committee, paul ryan, refuses to negotiate. >> mr. speaker. we have 10 days left in this session. , in this session this year's session, according to the schedule. we're supposed to adjourn on december 13. somewhat ironically, friday the 13th, and yet, mr. speaker, we see time is running out and we're not addressing the

critical issue and the critical responsibility of funding the government, of applying resources to our priorities. time is running out, mr. speaker, for budget conferees to send us legislation so we can avoid another government shutdown in january. a budget conference agreement will require compromise from both sides, a step that budget chairman paul ryan and many of his colleagues seem unprepared to take. mr. speaker, it has been my premise that the reason we did not go to conference for the last seven mondays months, notwithstanding the fact that the senate passed a budget and the house passed a budget, is that chairman ryan knows there's no compromise that he could reach, that he could bring back and have the support of his colleagues on the republican side, mr. speaker. and as a result, we have no compromise. as a result, we have no product to consider.

this is an extremely disappointing position, mr. speaker, because it's clear that the ryan budget is not a viable blueprint for governing. it was not when we passed it, and it is not now. it was a pretense of fiscal responsibility without any of the substance of fiscal reality or courage. that fact was made evident this summer as republicans could only pass funding bills for defense and veterans' programs, pulling their transportation funding bill and not even bringing the other appropriation bills to the floor. ust a few days ago, actually yesterday, all 12 of the subcommittee -- republican subcommittee chairs of the appropriation committee sent a letter to paul ryan, chris van hollen, patty murray, senator murray and senator sessions and said we need to have a budget,

we need to have a compromised agreement and we need to have a sequester number eliminated and a rational number replacing it, a number that can work for america. in fact, they said, if you don't do it we're going to have going to have a meat ax, not only the domestic side of the budget, education, health care, environment, law enforcement but also on the national security side of the budget. we all know how the budget really achieves balance, offered by mr. ryan, severe cuts in the same vain of the irrational sequester that targeted the most vulnerable americans and placed our economic recovery in jeopardy. somewhat ironic that on the front page of "the washington post" today we see mr. ryan is not focused on the budget, he's focused on the poor.

that is a proper focus, and this congress ought to be focused on that, but it is interesting that the ryan budget does exactly the opposite of what we need to do to make sure that the poor are reduced in number and the middle class are expanded in number. that's why, in my view, mr. speaker, regarding this budget, so many of his own party could not support appropriation bills within the framework of the ryan budget. that's why the bills were not brought to the floor. already some republicans are admitted that only a balanced aploach will enable -- approach will enable us to get the deficit reduction we need. revenues, that hated word, revenues must be on the table. representative tom cole, the former chairman of the republican campaign committee of oklahoma, is one of them telling reporters on october 25 that, and i quote mr. cole. i think both sides would like

to deal with the sequester, and we're willing to put more revenue on the table to do that. mr. cole was one of the signers of that letter to which i referred saying let's replace the meat ax represented by the sequester. unfortunately, chairman ryan continues to rule out any talk of revenues which are the key to any meaningful compromise that will replace the sequester. now, mr. speaker, as you probably know and as i think my republican colleagues know, i have said now and i have said in the past, we must also deal with entitlements. e need a balanced plan, not an unbalanced plan. without a balanced plan, the sequester will remain in place and will hurt america. instead of just saying what he's against, it's time for mr. ryan and republicans to show a readiness to compromise to achieve results for the american people. mr. ryan is the chairman of the conference committee, yet he

has to this date not put on the table what chairmen always do, the chairman's mark or chairman suggestion or chairman's proposal. we are willing to compromise and do what it takes to achieve a bipartisan deal on the budget. this was evident when we voted unanimously, alongside republicans, to end the government shutdown even when it meant supporting a c.r. at a level -- continuing resolution, appropriation bill for government at a level we believed was too low but we understood compromise was necessary. and so we voted, all of us, all 198 democrats voted to open up the government and to pay america's bills while 147 republicans, approximately 62% of the republicans voted to keep government shut down and not to pay america's bills. i was encouraged to read the letter sent yesterday, as i said, by chairman rogers and the appropriations subcommittee

chairs, making clear how important it is for conferees to send us a budget by thanksgiving -- by thanksgiving. that would be this friday because we're not going to be here next week. rather than risk another painful government shutdown and the continuation of the irrational sequester this coming year. many republicans now agree with democrats that the sequester is unworkable. who said so? mr. ryan says he doesn't like the sequester. mr. cantor, the majority leader, says he doesn't like the sequester. and hal rogers says it's an rkable and this is opportunity to replace the sequester with a sensible approach that permits congress to look stratidgically at our budget priorities -- strategically at our budget priorities and long-term fiscal goal. if we do so it will the most

important stimulus of our economy, job-creating action that this congress could take. mr. speaker, i hope that chairman ryan will set his flawed budget aside and instead embrace the approach that many of his republican colleagues are already recognizing is the only realistic path toward a compromised -- compromise by this committee. to do so could usher in an historic agreement to achieve real fiscal responsibility for america for years to come. i hope mr. ryan's leadership will result in that >> at about the aim time congressman hoyer was speaking on the house floor, house republican leaders with reporters in the capitol. they said the senate should vote on a house-passed bill that would allow insurance companies

to continue selling health plans that don't meet the environments of the aaffordable care act. >> good morning, everyone. you know, it's not just americans who are getting their cancellation notices that are upset. it's everything that follows. what we're seeing here is a pattern of broken promises if the administration. number one, if you like your health care plan you can keep it. most americans are finding out that is not true. secondly what the president said, we pass obamacare, premiums are going to go doufpble i think what many people are sigh seing is the premiums are going through the roof. listen, it's just one more reason why this health care law needs to be scrapped.

now. >> good morning. you know, the american people are very, very worried. moms and dads are worried that they're going to lose their health care plan. and that they have -- the one that they have and they like and they're worried if they'll be able to go to the same pediatrician they want their children to go to. young adults are now witnessing the increase in health care costs and are wondering whether they'll be able to afford even a basic policy. individual whors going onto the health care.gov website are beginning to fear -- healthcare.gov website are beginning to fear their identity may be stolen. many americans are receiving cancellation notices from insurance companies. the president broke a major promise to the american people and now it is hard for them to trust any assurances thunder law. we've heard the president say he didn't know about the problems

with the website. but yet a report has just come out out to say that there were warning signs throughout the white house back in martha there would be a problem with the rollout of this health care law. nancy pelosi and the house democrats were architects of this law. last week, 39 of them joined us in trying to help americans being hurt under this law. it is time for the senate to join them and join us and act to help protect the american people. >> we all know the famous quote by then-speaker nancy pelosi that you have to pass the bill to know what's in it 56785% of the american people disapprove of the law. mainly because of the three main principal waves of the law itself.

first the website, didn't work. "consumer reports," have you ever seen "consumer reports" not go to a website? they recommend americans not to go to the website because of the fear of fraud. the president saying if you have health care and like it you can keep it. american nose that was not true and it wasn't being honest. and the final wave of the principle of failure is going to be the cost. the idea that this was going to lower costs, they say it's going to raise the costs. you won't be able to keep your doctor. it's time for the senate to act with us as the american people continue to see that this is a major failure and will not solve the problem. >> this week i got a letter from marie hunter who lives in spokane valley. this is what she wrote. like so many others i have had my insurance policy canceled.

it was affordable and filled my needs as a 63-year-old woman. i feel so helpless and my heart is heavy. i have worked since i was 13 and done what i could to be productive and responsible. do you see a way out of this awful situation for me and others like me? how did people like me end up being on the casualty list? please help. and her words struck me because she's not different than millions of hardworking average americans across this country. we have heard the numbers. over five million have received a letter canceling their health insurance policy. and yet just over 100,000 have signed up for the plan. but these are more than just numbers. these are real people that are being impacted. like marie who come january 1 doesn't know wlorpt she'll be able to go see her doctor. now, the house has passed a

legislative solution, the president has proposed this political fix, short-term, in states like mine, washington state, the governor and insurance commissioner said they're not going to implement the president's quick fix. so it leaves people wondering what's going to happen on january 1. we need real solutions. we need to help people across this country. we need make sure we have health care that's affordable and accessible to the people of this country. >> the letters continue to pour in our office. sad letters about people that are losing their health insurance. some of the saddest letters i have read are from young people. young people that are just starting out in life. they're trying to pay their bills, pay their student loans, find employment without having their hours cut in such a tough job market with unemployment at record highs for these young

folks. and the letters are telling the story. their premiums are increasing, some in kansas, close to 130%. their out of pocket costs are going from $2,000 to $6,000. these young people can't afford that. they already were on tight budgets just trying to figure out how to pay their bills and now this added cost. the american people deserve etter. >> there's some real quofse fundamental fairness being played out across the country. people understand intuitively then you break a promise there's something unfair about that. when you lose a freedom to buy a health care plan that works for you and your family there's something unfair about that when a product is sold based on false information and steps aren't being take ton correct that, that's unfair. it's unfair to people in my district, people like matthew,

people like nan si, people like con and karen. matthew is a resident in the pittsburgh hill he wrote to me, he said, we like the policy we have and would like to keep it but we are unable to because the law made it impossible. which is contrary to the numerous promises president obama made to the public. nancy a dairy farm for the western pennsylvania, similar situation. the plan she has had with her family for 25 years. the replacement will cost three times as much. then there's don and karen in johnstown, former marine, former coal miner they run a ministry that serves people in the third world. they're losing their plan. here's what he had to say. i specifically bought a plan that met my needs. i like my plan very much and it was something i could afford. the replacement plan is going to come with a deductible of more than $6,000. all.for fairness for

thank you. >> mr. speaker, republicans on sunday talk shows and news conferences have been touting the idea of allowing insurance companies to go across state lines. do you know how that is going to bring down the cost that significantly if insurance companies were allowed to sell policies -- >> what happened is, you'd have far more competition in terms of policies available to the american people. some states you only have one or two companies that offer plans. and if you had companies able to sell in all 50 states and you were -- you could advertise in all 50 states to all americans, you'd have much more competition bringing the rates down and providing afordable coverage for the american people. >> mr. speaker, the propings committee is encouraging the budget conference to set a topline so they can start working on it. >> i noticed that. >> do you think the budget

conference should put out a top line now so budget work can be done? >> it's appropriate to do appropriations bills to fund the overnment. continuing to operate under continuing resolutions is a poor way to do business. i understand the frustration from the appropriator, they want regular order. the problem we had today, the house appropriation bills are marked to one number. the senate appropriation bills are marked to a much higher number. until there's an agreement out of the budget conference on a discretionary spending number for the year, they're unable to do their work. frankly, it's not fair. so i'm hopeful there will be a number but you have to talk to paul ryan and senator murray about that. >> last week you guys passed a plan, are you going to do anything before the end of the year to help people keep their doctors? >> we're going to continue to do oversight so we understand exactly what's happening out

there. our members are going to continue to collect stories, no decisions on what it is we may or may not do. but we're going to do everything we can to try to protect the american people from this awful law. thanks. ed [captioning performed by national captioning institute] [captions copyright national cable satellite corp. 2013] >> today is the 150th anniversary of president lincoln's gettysburg address. next week, thanksgiving day, at 4:00 and 10:00 p.m. eastern on c-span3's american history tv we'll have more. >> "the wall street journal" is holding its c.e.o. council in washington this week. today house budget committee chairman paul ryan spoke about the house-senate budget fworks on the fiscal year 2014 budget.

here's a few minutes of that. >> becomes about raising taxes, we're not going to get anywhere. the president already got another big tax cut in january. $600 billion that number is high now that we're a year into it, from the fiscal cliff. point number two, we're very serious about tax reform. ways and means committee is moving tax reform legislation, max baucus, democrat, senate finance committee is working on tax reform legislation. that's where taxes should be dealt. with we do not want to shortchange tax reform because if we take tax loopholes and put them in the budget process we're shortchanging tax reform. our goal is to get the rates down. our goal is to get to a 25% rate, an internationally competitive system. those so-called loopholes are immediated to bring the rates down to grow the economy and get people back to work. on the spending side, we are willing to trade some spending cuts that are across the board and crude, which is the sequester, for smarter spending

cuts in the other part of the budget, the entitlement side of the budget. that's a trade we're willing to look at and that's what we're looking at right now. >> you're willing to ease the sequester limits in the near term -- concessions.some >> is there progress on that? >> we're farther than when we started. we do have differences of opinion. we're going to try to work out our differences this way i look at this is the bottom line, what we ought to do is something good for the deficit. meaning, are we reducing the deficit or not? that's point one. point two, i'm more than happy to cut spending in a smarter way to replace the crude across the board cuts and do it in a way that produces more deficit reduction. that to me would be a step in the right direction. by the way it would show government can work an function, even this divided government. if we do that, that's probably a

good sign of competence. it would be nice to show the two parties can function at a basic level but we're not going to raise taxes to do that because we think it's bad for the economy, it hurts tax reform and takes pressure off the fiscal discipline we have here, getting spending under control. it's only under control in discretionary, not the big growing part of the budget. >> if you can't get that kind of deal you described, would you be willing to accept just an extension of the se quest her >> that's what we'll do. >> and you would consider that basically -- >> we'll take the spending cuts we've got and take the fiscal discipline we have and we think a smarter way to do it and prefer to do it the smarter way but if we can't do it that way, we'll deal with what we have. >> all of that later on our schedule. treasury secretary jack lew spoke at "the wall street journal" event as well he said he's optimistic that the u.s. economy will be stronger in the

coming year he also called on congress to extend the debt limit well before the february eadline. >> good morning. mr. speaker, thank you for joining us. >> good to be here. >> you just got back from an interesting trip to asia. we've been talking about asia, i want to come to the domestic story in a minute, but you were in china. plan ended, can you give us a sense of these reforms, what's going to happen and if it's going to represent a radical change in china's economic structures? >> i have the sense that they're serious about economic reform. they, you know, whatever issue we were discussing, they understood what they needed to do moving toward market allocation of resources, moving

toward a market determined exchange rate, opening marks. what i didn't get a good sense of is the sequence or pace or change. and i suspect that they're looking at several years of change and obviously it makes a big difference what order they take things in. i think they know that they've got to get more market signal into their economy in order to get the growth rate that they need. obviously the global economy needs for them to do that as well. but i definitely had the sense that they were serious about the economic reforms. >> there's a lot of c.e.o.'s from a lot of america's, and the world's, largest companies. what's your sense of what it will mean for global business, american business in particular. is this the kind of opening they're going to involve -- is that going to open up their markets? >> take the shanghai free trade zone. it's one of the initiatives they announced a few months ago after our strategic and economic

dialogue here's in washington. they have not yet determined all the details of what that will entail. if it opens up their financial services market that's a big deal. if it opens up a number of their markets to international competition. they've made the decision to reverse from presuming their marks are closed to presuming they're open. now the question is what list of things they close. they still have a lot of work to do. they had a big announcement of the shanghai free trade zone. that will be an early indicator of where they're heading. they have domestic needs, they know that inventory buildup in the state-owned enterprises is a signal that the market is not work that resource allocation is not working. they know that to maintain a growth rate in the seven's is going to require reform. i suspect that they're going to be making the sequence of change and the timing of change what

they need to get their economy moving and to do it in a way, smooth the transition, because there will be disruption when market signals as opposed to state decisions are making more of the determinations. they also seem to understand that they need to stimulate demand. their economy has been driven by heavy investment for export. in order to have a good sustainable growth rate going forward, they need to have a more consumer demand and they need that in order to satisfy the needs of their population. at the same time. one of the things that they're talking about is taking some of the profits from the state-owned enterprises and pumping it back into the economy, both through putting money into the government to spend and also dividends to shareholders. i don't want to suggest that a week or a month from now we're going to turn around and it will

be transformed. but they certainly chartered a direction that's consistent with the things we have very much encouraged them to think about. i suspect that we're going to still be pressing them to move faster and probably when we see the sequence, we may have made different choices. we're just going to have to continue to work with them. one thing that really impressed me was how important the u.s. relationship is to them. i met with president -- met with the president after he took over in march and i was there just a couple of days after the plenum and it's a lot of work for them to prepare for these kinds of meetings. it was important to them to have these conversations. >> you've been pressing china to open its markets. in the last few month, last couple years, we've seen a reversal in that registrationship. china has been pretty -- said some critical things about the way the u.s. has been running thins, in particular over fiscal

issues in the last few months. did you get any -- did you get much from them on that? pressure to do something about getting a fiscal house in order -- in order? >> not really. i think that they understand that, you know, we went through a noisy political process but at the end, we did what we had told them we would do, which is make sure that we would stand by the full faith and credit of the united states. you know, i think that they are very much curious how the process will unfold. they did ask some questions about what -- how we saw things unfolding. it was not with a high degree of anxiety or with a high degree of pressure. it was really -- it was a small part of the conversation and it was more informational and i was kind of reassuring. i said if you look at the political debate here, leaders on both sides have said that we need to extend the debt limit, we can't go through the kind of

process that created so much anxiety in september and october. and you know, i would say that if congress would do it sooner rather than later it would be a good thing for the u.s. and global economy. >> what are we going to do on the debt issues? congress has successfully kicked the can down the road for another few months. we've got more looming deadlines in january and february. you're saying we're not going to have another experience like we had in october? >> i think that, if you look at the things republicans leaders have said since october, it's clear that this was not a good experience either for the country or for them politically. i know the right answer. the right answer is they should just extend the debt limit way in advance and not have any sense of crisis at all. i hope that will happen. they said february 7 is the day when the debt limit expires. we do have extraordinary measures that will last about a month after that. they have some time.

i hope when they resolve the budget, when they start moving forward, they just do the debt limit in a businesslike way and kind of give some certainty to the u.s. and global economy that would be the right thing to do. >> everybody is looking for some kind of longer term, sustainable budget arrangement. we'll hear from paul ryan later this afternoon. what would be the right way to go forward in your view? there's talk of trading off the sequester for changes to entitlements, entitlement reforms. what would be -- what's your position? what's the best outcome here? what can we expect in the next couple of months? >> i guess if you ask me the view of the best option it may not be the same as what the most likely outcome is. i think the president's budget lays out a clear path with both tax reform and entitlement reform and replacing the sequester and i actually think the president's budget is a blueprint that were we to follow it would give the economy the kind of certainty and tail wind

it needs to grow. you know, i don't want to get aed of the budget conferees, since the resolution of the debt limit in october, they've been meeting, senator murray and congressman ryan have been meeting. there is any number of possibilities that they could come out with, any number of sizes. it could be small, medium or large. i think that anything they do that shows that they can kind of work together to kind of chip away would be a kind of -- instill some confidence both in the process and in the substance. i don't want to jump ahead of where they are. the challenge on doing something really big is that both sides have to do something really hard. we've made clear that in order to do the kinds of entitlement reforms that are in the president's budget, it would require moving on tax reforl and raising some additional revenue. if that's not a possibility, for

the republicans, then something large is not likely. but there's other ways to -- for these conferees to work things out. i really would leave it to them. >> as you say it didn't work out well for the republicans as has been noted. but there was a sense that the administration wasn't getting involved, so tom -- to some extent it looked like the scradmrg was sitting back and letting republicans dig their own hole. you say you'll leave it to the budget conferees on the hill are you going to be more proactively involved this time? >> just to be clear, we said in october that congress needed to extend the debt limit. we kept them very closely informed of where we were, literally every week and there was not a negotiation over the debt limit. so it was a question of congress figuring out how it was going to deal with the thing they had to deal with.

that is protecting the full faith and credit of the united states. the budget conference is an intrinsically congressional process. it's one of the few things that doesn't come to the president to be signed. the house and senate agree on a budget resolution and sets their internal governance of how they'll handle appropriations and budgetary matters. our -- you know, our budget experts consult with the people on the hill and answer questions but it's intrinsically a congressional process. our view as to what the right solution is is quite clear. the president's budget is what he strikes by. it represent what is he offered the speaker at the end of last year. it is, i think, the right solution. but we've got to see where this conference goes. >> let me ask you one specific issue on appropriations. think today, actually, max baucus, the chairman of the finance committee, is going to

present a plan which he's been working on, i think with dave camp in the house, on corporate tax reform. of greast interest here to our audience and the taxation of overseas earnings. there's a lot of, as you know you hear frit c.e.o.'s and others a lot of concern about this issue. i don't know how much you've had a chance to see this late proast posal. do you think what this proposal or something else in the course of the budget negotiation this may be an opportunity to deal with this issue which worries a lot of business people. >> i talked to senator baucus. i think it's a constructive step he's putting forward a draft. i look forward to studying the details. from what i understand it shares some significant characteristics with the president's framework which i actually think has a certain amount of convergence between democrats and republicans. i thope hope that republicans engage with him on it. i hope that democrats engage with him on it. what we saw in the middle of

october is when you let a majority of congress work they do the right thing. if you let the majority work on tax reform, what the president outlined in july is a plausible path. if you can't do everything, do business tax reform, have our statutory rate not be something that drives business out but atrabts business to the united states. deal with disparity between u.s. and international tax rates. eliminate some tax provisions that skew investment decisions and there's the benefit in business tax reform, in fax reform in general that there is some one-time revenue that comes in. the president said in july, we ought to use that to kind of jump start our investment and infrastructure. you can't use toyota lower tax rates forever because it wouldn't pay forever. it's one-time savings that we think would be an enormous shot in the arm to the economy and it would build the foundation for a strong growth and job creation economy going forward if we put

it into infrastructure. i'm hoping that this conversation still can move forward. you know, there's an awful lot of issues moving thru congress now where i actually do think that there's the potential of consensus. i think if you look at tax reform, imgation reform, the rm bill, i hope that october represented something of a threshold that would we crossed over and if we can see processes where ideas are put forward, where it's about trying to see is if there's common ground, you know, it would be a good thing for the country. >> where do you see the u.s. economy right now? i think you were saying fairly bullish things last week but we still, we've had a couple of months of better employment growth but unemployment is still high, real unemployment rate if you like is measured by, if you take account of the people who dropped out of the work force is still very, very high by

historic standards. growth is still soft. what's your expectation going forward? are we still going to be stuck in this rut of 2%, just over 2% growth and still high unemployment? >> i think if you look at the economic data from the last few months, there are a lot of encouraging signs. we're seeing the housing sector doing much better, we're seeing manufacturing doing better. private sector jobs. the jobs numbers that came out just a lit overall a week ago went back and corrected the numbers for the previous couple of months showing we have had roughly 200,000 jobs a month which was higher than the original numbers. not enough. we need to do better. but it's showing, you know, a significant trend in the right direction. i think if you look at what's been going on the last year, we've had an enormous amount of fiscal drag. some of it was intentional. the phasing out of payroll tax holiday, the imposition of lower spending levels. some of it is unintentional.

sequestration kicking in because congress was unable to agree on a balanced set of medium and long-term alternatives that fiscal drag runs its course. there are various estimate bus it's well over 1.5% of g.d.p., fiscal drag this year. if we're ending the year with a just over 2% g.d.p., it gives me reasonable optimism that going into next year it will be better than that. look at the jobs numbers from last month, we've actually seen state and local employment making up for the de-clines in federal employment. during the kept of the recession it was the other way around. state and local government was shrinking. if the head winds from federal contradiction abate, which they will, and the rest of the economy from housing to manufacturing to state and local government are doing better, those are all indications that we ought to go into next year stronger. >> we had our strongest

employment growth in october for quite a while despite the government shutdown, led some to suggest we should shut the government down more often. >> i hope nobody learns the wrong lesson from the numbers. the economy would have done even better for we had had -- if we had not had that debate here in washington. the truth is, in 2011 and 2013, we hadn't seen government debate policy uncertainty, putting a kind of pall on investment activity, we might be seing the kind of recovery we all want. i'm curious what the views in this room are in terms of marginal investment decisions and how the debate in washington affects the decisions that people in real businesses are making. from the conversations that i've had with c.e.o.'s, i think it's substantial. >> i want to come to a couple of questions from the audience in a minute. but first financial reform. we've had dodd-frank. we've got this issue a numb of

issues still related to that and other issues too. one particular thing i want to ask you about, the volcker rule this issue of financial institutions using their own money, proprietary trading. i think you've said you want outlines from the regulate yorns this by the end of the year. >> i don't want outlines, i want the rule. >> what's your expectation now by the end of the year? is there clarity? >> i'm optimist exwe'll see a rule by the end of the year. i've met on a regular basis with regulators. five different agencies have to come to the same place. it's a complicated process. but it has to come to closure. it was an important part of dodd-frank. i think it's important in terms of financial regulatory policy. i think it's important in terms of confidence and government. these processes can't go on forever. if you look at the period of time from dodd-frank being enacted until now, there were a

couple of years where every effort to delay the implementation of dodd-frank was used from slowing down funding the agencies to urging congress to repeal dodd-frank. for the last year, we've seen a different environment. we've seen an environment where the need for certainty and the acceptance of dodd frank as the law of the land seems to have replaced that effort to delay and perhaps repeal it. frankly when i became secretary and moved in on that opportunity and i pulled the regulators together and i said, you need to figure out what it is that are the difference tweens the agencies and we have to come together every few weeks to talk through the issues, you need to make decisions. i think that the major issues are resolved. they're figuring out, it's a complicated piece of business because on one hand, they have to preserve the ability to have firms to make markets and on the other hand, because of the policies, stopping proprietary

trading needing to shut down the kind of risky positions firms were holding on their own account. i'm optimistic they're getting there. >> but you expect there to be, the rule will be agreed and published by the end of the year? >> that's what i've urged them to do last week the president reiterated it. >> final question on the financial shrble. it looks like a hostile environment for financial issues. looking at what's going on at j.p. morgan, you look at the way this administration is pursuing all kinds of financial regulatory issues with financial institutions. there's some concern, a lot of concern on wall street as you know, maybe this is going too far. the environment you're creating is actually crushing the opportunity for -- and the incentive for companies to take risks. and that's going to jeopardize the economy in the long run. >> we have the deepest and most liquid financial markets in the world. it's an important part of the vitality of the american

economy. we also have come out of the worst economic rye sis since the great depression, it was an economic crisis brought on by practices that should have been better regulated. in my view going into this has been consistent. we have to try to figure out the right thing. this is not a question of do everything you can or do as little as you can. it's a question of trying to get that balance and do it right. i have said that on that line where you're not sure, given the cry soifs 2008-2009, you can err on doing a little more and correcting it if you've gone too far. others could make the counterargument and say, do a little less, come back, toughen it up. i think the american people are still recovering from the economic crisis and we have to be table assure them that there won't be another financial crisis any time soon. >> we're going to hand it over to questioners in -- from the audience. >> we have a few minutes for questions. yes, please. let's get a microphone.

>> if you could identify yourself. > name, rank, serial number. inaudible] >> earlier in the conversation you made comments about the debt ceiling. could you give me a sense for how you think about the debt ceiling. is there a scenario or metric you look at that says it's long call to raise it now? what would be the scenario and what would be the indicator you're not in that position? >> the important thing to remember about the debt ceiling is it is at the very end of all the decisions that have been made. congress has appropriated money, entitlement programs have been established, revenue rules have been set. in the end, the debt limit comes after all ethe policy has been made. so there really is no alternative but to raise the

debt limit when you need to borrow in order to pay the bills. there can be a full throated debate about what our policy should be on any of those other areas but there cannot be a question, once we've made commitments as a government, that we keep our commitments. it can't be that we have contractors who have done work and then we say we won't pay them. it can't be that we have people who have benefits that they're entitled to but don't get paid. the full faith and credit of the united states, whether it's bonds or contracts or benefits has to be honored. and i think that the whole idea of debt limit reform is something we should probably think about because the kind of brinksmanship we saw in 2011 and 2013, i think really did harm the economy. it did hurt confidence. it did reduce investment activity and hiring activity. and it doesn't serve a useful purpose because it doesn't really affect the policy. and you know, if there's debate

about what we should do in tax reform in terms of how much revenue and how much entitlement reform to do, that's a different matter. the president put a plan on the table, we've been ready on multiple occasions to reach an agreement on a bipartisan basis. it cannot be that you get to the end of all of the taxing and spending decisions and say the government can't pay its bills. so i do believe congress just has to do it. if you look at the comments made by congressional leaders, republicans and democrats, i don't think october was something they want to repeat. i'm quite hopeful that they'll do it in a businesslike way ahead of the scheduled expiration of the debt limet and certainly without creating the kind of brinksmanship we saw a few weeks ago. >> i'm nick from snapon tools. we've come through a difficult

time in terms of economy and you mentioned the marginal decisions on investment. yet i would say if you polled the businessmen they would say they have a particular lack of influence on policy today. in other words, the view of industry and commerce are not really reflected in policies coming out of washington and so on, otherwise things like conflict minerals wouldn't be in dodd-frank. i wonder if you have any view about why that is. >> i'm not sure i agree with the premise. i know i speak with c.e.o.'s on a regular basis. the policies we design, we design them with the real intention of trying to meet the needs of businesses that want to invest and expand and grow the economy. our tax reform principles reflect much discussion with the private sector. i think that there's been a bit of an evolution of the parties in this country and i think that some of the kind of traditional

support in the republican party and arger businesses financial enterprises has changed a little bit. i think that may be what you're referring to. i think businesses thought we were listening to them in september and october. what i heard them saying was we go to the hill and we don't think people are listening to us there. i think a lot of people on the hill were listening. if there are 50 or 100 people who have a different or nontraditional view, it doesn't mean no one is listening. i urge people not to just focus on 50 or 100 who may have a more radical idea of what to do but focus on kind of the core of members who, when it came to a vote on october 16, overwhelming majority did what business thought made sense. you know, that kind of effort is brought to bear on things like tax reform and infrastructure investment, i think you could find a bipartisan majority that would do the right thing.

>> secretary lew, we know you have a hard break at 9:30, the stock market is about to open, you've got to get to your day job, so thank you for joining us. >> thank you. >> today marks the 150th anniversary of president lincoln's gettysburg address. look for our coverage from soldiers national cemetery including the keynote address from civil war historian james mcpherson. next week, television day at 4:00 and 10:00 p.m. eastern on c-span3's american history tv. >> coming up tonight on c-span, president obama and house budget committee paul ryan are interviewed at "the wall street journal" c.e.o. conference. from the same event panelists talk about the global economic outlook. president obama spoke about the healthcare.gov website, immigration reform and iran's

nuclear program during an interview tuesday at "the wall street journal's" annual c.e.o. conference. he was interviewed by "journal's" washington bureau chief for 40 minutes. >> ladies and gentlemen, the president of the united states. [applause] >> thank you. thank you, everybody. thank you so much. everybody please have a seat. thank you. well, it is wonderful to be here. and i always look forward to an opportunity to speak to some of our top businesses across the country who are hiring people, investing in america, making the economy run. and many of you, i've had a chance to interact with before. as you know, oftentimes when i do something like this, i want