there have been some academic research done on the issue of the h1b worker which is the visa for high-tech workers and other professional workers, other professional workers coming in under nafta from mexico and canada, and others come in and are a program in which there are company transfers. you probably get a total of guest workers coming into the country of nearly one million people a year. and the h1b workers can stay for three years, renewable for another three years, and the transfer visa workers can stay

up to five years. say you multiply one million times five, you get about 5 million professional workers in the united states at the present time taking jobs and some academic studies that are done, basically pointing out that we have much higher unemployment rate among professional workers than we have experienced in the past and that wages for those professional workers are basically stagnant over the past about a decade which would not be true if there were a shortage and if there were bidding among the employers for those high skilled workers. and with regard to the lower end of the skill level, farmers will tell you that they have crops that are rotting on the vine, and that is true.

there have always been crops rotting on the vine regardless of how many workers were available for harvesting them. that always happens. for various reasons -- sometimes the crop is somewhat damaged. sometimes it is simply a resource issue that the workers do not get there at the right time. but it is not true that farmers have to have access to the illegal immigrant workers that they are currently hiring to harvest those agricultural crops. because there is a visa, h2a visa, which allows foreign guest workers to come in for agricultural work that is unlimited, there is no reason that any agricultural employer

needs to hire somebody illegally in the country to harvest of the work, that they cannot turn to the h2a program to bring in foreign-guest workers to do that job. but they do not like to do that. they do not like to do that because they have to pay more for those foreign h2a visa workers. they have to pay more for those workers because, as part of that program, there is a requirement that the employee or furnish shelter to those workers, that the employer pay for the transportation of those workers to the worksite and back, and that the employer has to make available food resources so that the worker can buy his own food resources rather than having to buy them from the employer which the employer can use to take

advantage of those workers. those provisions were put into law specifically to stop the slide in the wages, the real wages earned by agriculture workers in the united states which are today significantly below the wages that were earned in real inflation-adjusted terms two or three decades ago. they have decreased the value of the earnings of those workers because of the abundance of supply of illegal workers that are hired by those agricultural employers. >> the panel you referred to this morning looking at conference of immigration reform, their interests collectively, while different, were using the narrative of it being in the economic

self-interest of the country to do this, the economic interest of the country. they talked about individual pieces of legislation that went to some of the sectors of this coalition, like the h1b, high-tech folks, agricultural interests. they refer to legislation, small pieces of legislation that are speaking to these different pieces of the puzzle, as not being adequate. yet, there was some saying they would support this if you kept the dialogue going. is there any legislation that you would support, that your organization would support, no matter how an hour of -- no matter how narrow or broad that would allow for some attempts to adjust some aspects of the immigration issue as you are defining it or is that too risky in terms of creating the kind of

political dynamic that might wind up being a larger piece of legislation? >> well, you nailed the answer to that question with the last part of your question. it is sort of an insider issue in terms of congressional process. and that is you need to know that if you have a piece of immigration legislation that originates in the house, that is sent to the senate for consideration. that can result in a request for a conference committee between the senate and the house to look at the issue of merging the senate position which clearly would be at 744, the comprehensive approach, with the selected piece of legislation that was adopted in the house.

and the insider assessment on that is that that would, in effect, and power interests in -- empower interest in the leadership that appoints the conferees to the house of representatives to name people that would go along with the senate approach so that a form of s-744 would go back to the house for a vote and it would -- as i understand it -- i am not one of our legislative lawyers, but as i understand it, that would probably mean that it would come to a vote in the house which is exactly what speaker pelosi has been trying to achieve because she thinks there would be enough republicans that would go along with it, in addition to

virtually the entire democratic membership of the house, and thereby pass the comprehensive approach. so those that are potent -- those that are opposed to the comprehensive approach recognizing that possibility have taken the position that it would be a mistake to adopt any immigration legislation in the house, because it would lead to that type of scenario. >> it is a short-term win for fair --that no immigration legislation comes to a vote in the 2014 session as opposed to the board of security act going forward? >> well, that is a very good question.

in effect, we have traditionally in all of our 35 plus years worked with members of congress to get specific legislation introduced in both the house and the senate. i cannot imagine that that is going to change in 2014. that was true in 2013. basically, i imagine, and on this we do not specifically have a position, but i can imagine that we're going to be influenced in terms of our communications with our members throughout the country in their contacts with their representatives by what our friends in the house of representatives that we work

with most closely recommend that we do in terms of trying to bring about the legislative outcomes that we would like to see. >> you talked a lot about short-term policy goals. i was wondering what the long-term policy goals would be to go focusing on the 11 million immigrants that are here that probably will not be going anywhere. what are you looking at policy wise in that area? >> it is our assessment, and i think that virtually anybody who works on the immigration issue in washington, d.c., would agree, that the primary magnet that drives people you legally into the country -- illegally

into the country is the prospect of getting jobs. this was basically the conclusion of congress in 1965 when they set up the i-9 system requiring employers to gather on their new hires to try to assure that they were legally in the country. this was the consensus in, at least the majority, in congress in 1969 when the immigration authorities were told to set up the e verify system, to set up an effective system for allowing employers to verify the work documents of their employees, and it is our assessment and i think the assessment of most members of congress that if the e verify system were made a national mandatory system the way it has in arizona and a

number of other states, that would effectively reduce the job magnet that draws people into the country illegally. i did a study of the effects of the arizona legislation that is on our website that documents a precipitous drop in the estimated illegal immigrant population in arizona after adopting the legislation that they did. a significant drop of medicaid births in the state. a significant drop of students in limited english proficient education in public schools in the state. and actually, a larger drop in the crime rate than was true elsewhere in the country.

one of the important aspects of the requirement of you verify -- of e-verify which we have pushed for a long time is that it makes employers responsible. what is happening at the present time is employers know that they can look the other way when they are presented fake documents because they are subject to prosecution under the law only if they knowingly hire illegal workers. and that knowingly qualification gets them off the hook if they have been shown fake documents because they are not expected to be able to distinguish between fake documents and legitimate documents. if, however, they are required to use the e-verify system and they receive information that

the social security number is fake or the immigration document is fake or that the individual has overstayed a visa and they continue to employ that person, then they are knowingly hiring somebody illegally in the country. under the current law, they can be prosecuted. some people are prosecuted under the law at the present time ago but very few -- some people are prosecuted under the law at the present time, but very few. it is -- it would double the message that it is difficult to get a job in the united states by increasing the incentive of employers taking advantage of the press system to hire illegally because they would be exposed to prosecution. with regard to the issue of border fencing, i think there is

a lot of sort of a smoke screen with the issue of border fencing. i think that you can make a very good argument that the border patrol resources that are currently available for trying to control the borders would be adequate for handling illegal entry into the country if illegal entry were cut down by a very large magnitude as a result of the knowledge of people that -- senator ron johnson is holding a press conference. >> i would like to introduce the two men standing beside me. we have mr. rick katzenberg, who is the counsel. his the president and founder of the wisconsin institute for law and liberty.

he will be talking about the filing details and the basic legal case of this lawsuit. i have mr. paul clement written he has been retained to consult on future potential appellate issues. at these, policy partner bankrupt law firm here in d.c. the 43rd solicitor general of the united states under george w. bush. i became familiar with him because he was the attorney arguing against obamacare in front of the supreme court. i attended all four of those sessions. i am very grateful that these two gentlemen have joined me today. this is a lawsuit that i am filing against captain archuleta and the office of personnel and management to overturn their ofing that gives members congress and their staff special

treatment under the health care law. why am i doing this? there are two basic reasons. the first is i think it is a basic issue of fairness. i really do believe that the american people expect and have every right to expect that members of congress should be fully subject to all of the that congress imposes on the rest of america. it is not the case with the health care law. particularly with this office of personnel management ruling. you all have perceived a press kit. a detailed timeline. a history of the legislative history of the past health care was. to take you back to that moment in time, the public was skeptical. about this grand scheme. it is doing neither of those things. the public was skeptical.

democratic supporters of this law basically made a covenant with the american people. they wanted -- they put on a pretty good show. they wanted to show the american people that they were eager. they were more than willing to benefit from the health care law, but also be subject to all of the rules and regulations. they were eager until they realized and started thinking about what the true effect on themselves would be. that is when they went running to president obama for special treatment. they got it. i realize that there has been some dispute in terms of whether this is really special treatment. let me describe exactly how egregious this treatment is. members ofthat congress were singled out by the health care law to lose their employer-sponsored care. let's face it, contrary to president obama's repeated assurances, he has broken promises. if you like your plan you, you can keep it.

that has been the lie of the year. we are now realizing that millions of americans have lost their health care coverage. including members of congress and their staff. haveons more, millions already lost and they are primarily people who are getting insurance through the individual market. the next wave of lost policies will be those individuals getting their health care coverage through their employers. that is really the issue here. those individuals currently are getting taxed advantages through their employer. when they lose their coverage, now they have to attain it through an exchange. exactly what members of congress said. here's the special treatment. only members of congress and their staff, when they lose their sponsored care, will have the ability to have their employers make a tax advantage contribution.

that is special treatment. that is completely unfair. completely unjust. that is what i am trying to overturn with this particular ruling. look at that legislative history, you'll notice that the senate -- when this law was before them, they had three opportunities to actually allow an employer contribution. when harry reid first filed the law, there were all kinds of committee activities. that allows for a contribution. that was included in the committee work. he chose not to include it in his law. offered amendments that would specifically allow an employer contribution. the last time, on march 24, 2010, that amendment was put to a vote and defeated. the vote was 43-56.

it was not like this was something that congress did not consider. knowledge it was something that they did not understand. this was debated and rejected. --t we're talking about here this is the law of the land. members of congress and this administration, if they do not like the law of the land, they should come to congress to change the law of the land. they should not change it by presidential decree or brings ital -- that to the second part of the reason that i am bringing this lawsuit. it is to uphold the rule of law. i think that this lawsuit will hopefully provide a very long overdue check on presidential power. expanding presidential power. particularly in this administration. we are seeing and i think we will continue to seek, a real abuse of executive authority by

this president. that is one of the primary issues and one of the primary reasons i am bringing this lawsuit. we have certainly seen it. it affects the united states senate through the national labor relations appointments. that was one instance where we were able to make this brief. one of the reasons i am filing this lawsuit is because, in general, numbers of congress do not have or cannot establish legal standing to bring a lawsuit. i truly believe that this is one of those cases and we will have mr. clement talk about that, where we do have standing. i do believe i have the obligation to make this point to overturn this role. to try to reestablish the check and balance, that very careful balance that our founders put into the constitution. with that, i would like to turn it over.

rick will talk about the legal issues. >> the lawsuit was filed this morning in the northern division of the eastern district of wisconsin, where senator johnson lives. the northern division sits in green bay. the case has been assigned to judge william greasback. when they passed the affordable care act, they knew that some people who had coverage with lose it. to acceptonfidence, for themselves what they were about to mandate, congress decided that the only coverage that would be made available to members and their staff was that which could be purchased on an aca exchange. there is no doubt about that. d3d provides that

the only health care plan that can be offered to members or their staff are those that may be purchased under an exchange created under the affordable care act. for our purposes, there are two types of exchanges. one, the small business exchange. on those small business exchanges, a tax-free subsidy can be paid by an employer. but the affordable care act explicitly defines a small employer as one with fewer than 100 and 40's. so they only -- the only type of exchange pertinent here are the individual exchanges established under the aca. neither the aca nor any other provision permits those who are purchasing insurance under those individual exchanges to receive tax-free subsidies. nor does the law provide cover

-- cover the employee --. provide for payment of tax subsidies. so, as a legal matter, congress got what it wanted. members of their staff are getting the same deal as millions of americans who will want their coverage as a result of the aca. they must now purchase on the individual exchanges. as senator johnson pointed out, this was not a mistake. congress knew that this would happen. state thatpressly members and their staff could receive tax-free subsidies to purchase health insurance. that language was not included in the aca as a result it passed. as it was adopted, an amendment was proposed. that would have permitted the payment of these tax-free

premiums. as senator johnson pointed out, that was not passed. unfortunately, what has happened , having chosen to make this display of solidarity with those who would lose their coverage, congress now does not want to feel their pain. avoid thest way to inability to pay these premiums would be to change the law. congress has not done this. they do not appear to want to take a vote on the issue. so, what has happened so frequently with the aca is the law is being ignored. opm has promulgated a rule. it has decreed that the federal government, an entity with

almost 3 million civilian employees, is actually a small employer. members of congress and their staff, only members of commerce and their staff, may purchase on the individual exchange. they may receive these tax-free subsidies. -- even no one else though no one else would be able to do this. this is quite frankly unlawful. unfortunately, it is one of many examples in which the affordable health care act has been unilaterally altered, deferred, exemptions granted, or there has been a refusal to enforce the laws. it is not the most egregious example. it is one that senator johnson

is able to do something about. from our perspective, this case is not about whether or not members of congress and their staff should be able to receive employer tax contributions to their health insurance. it is about the rule of law and whether that rule of law should be followed. we are confident that if we are able to make our case in the united states district court in wisconsin, that will be upheld. with that, i will turn things over to mr. clement. >> thank you. i just want to pick up for rick left off. thee indicated, when affordable care act was passed, it was an act of congress that the president signed. it included a number of very specific deadlines. very specific formulas. as thes happened, implementation deadlines have come to the fore, the administration has relaxed to

those deadlines and change the rules. part of the law and not part of the law will not go into effect on the date specified. a lot of people look at those actions and have said that those are contrary to the law that congress passed. they were doubtful that somebody would be standing -- have standing to bring a challenge to those executive actions. action by the executive here to eliminate an aspect of the law that congress thought was important, namely that the members of congress and their staffs would be subject to the same health care system with its limitations as his constituents, that provision has likewise been relaxed. what we think makes us different, and what we think gives somebody standing to raise an objection is that this does not just affect everybody in the country. this is not an abstract concern.

this is a provision that specifically affects half -- how they get their health care. it affects how the senator classifies employees within his office. so, unlike a classic challenge to a statute that is a generalized grievance that affects everyone, this is a challenge to the implementation of a statute that is specifically directed to set it, congress, their offices and how they get health care. that critically distinguishes cases that are out there that suggest that many instances, legislators do not have standing to raise objections in court. in particular, there are two things that make this case distinct. one is the fact that this directly impacts the senate and his office and how he administers the office and how those individuals receive and

pay for health care. it is not a generalized grievance. it affects those offices specifically. the second thing that distinguishes this is that often times, you have legislators bring court cases when they have not been able to prevail in the halls of congress. a classic example is the senator who does not like the war in vietnam. he brings a court action to challenge the legality of that action. a -- in a sense is the exact opposite. they have indicated that congress specifically considered the question of whether or not members of congress should get their health care in the same way that their constituents do. they made a conscious decision and boat after boat to create -- both after -- vote after vote. if it turned out to be a boon,

then the votes would rise together. otherwise, they would suffer through the same problems. they experience those problems firsthand. role,s sense, the opm this is the part of the talent that has been filed today. it really interferes with the congressional judgment. it stops what happened in the halls of congress and effectively relaxes the impact of the decision that congress made to make congress and its staff members directly deal with the exact same health care situations as their constituents here in --. >> i think that that makes a case where they can litigate in the courts. unlike these other instances, where this administration has not in lamented the law -- implemented the law, this is a real ability for the congress and its staff to raise this objection directly.

we feel confident that there is standing in this case. we look forward to having the opportunity to litigate this issue in court. thank you. >> we are happy to open up to questions. yes? staff getyou and your health insurance? if you are successful, what is the most fair way for the situation to be remedied? from personal experience, my wife went on the d.c. exchange and stopped almost immediately. she could not get through. when she did get through, the amount of personal information that she had to log on -- she was aware of the lack of security. she did not want to go any further. i support her in the decision. we went to a broker in wisconsin to purchase health care. still in the private market.

members of my staff also experienced the same problems. there was panic. they were running up to the deadline and unable to log into the system. unable to get confirmation that they had health care. standpoint, each instance of my staff members -- their experience was somewhat different. we will work with them long-term to make sure that they can secure good health care. can't you or members of your staff refuse the subsidies? can't they go on individual exchange and not go through the small business one and get the subsidies? >> that is what i elected to do. i think most members are trying to find the letter of the law. of anyno criticism member of congress not doing what i'm doing. they are taking advantage of the employer contribution. i have chosen not to do so. you talk about what most

americans are going through and how that relates. most are getting health care through employer coverage policies. we are really talking about a smaller group of americans that you're trying to make. can we talk about how big a group is? is it comparable to congress a situation? >> that group is going to grow. i think it will grow dramatically. i bought health care from the people who work with me for 31 years. the decision that is now in place -- when the exchange gets up and running more effectively, this will put greater pressure on employers to make pretty simple decisions. law,with the health care do i pay $15,000 per year for family plans? that is up $2500 per year, rather than reduced.

that was what president obama promised. trying to comply with pages of law and regulation, or do i pay i am not exposing my employees to financial risk. i am making them eligible for subsidies through the exchange. what i have been arguing for years is that there will be all kinds of employers. there will be millions of employees who will lose their employer-sponsored care. the incentives are there for employers to drop coverage. they can have their employees exchange -- gain coverage through the exchanges. we will have millions of americans losing their tax advantage health care coverage. they will be dumped in the exchange and have to obtain coverage after tax. we have talked about the tech stream. i have thought that was grossly unfair. my standpoint, that

would've been one of the things that i would have pushed. if you want to subsidize health exactlet them enjoy that same tax advantage. this is what i want to see after the first of the year. >> the question about congress singling itself out. it seems to me that by getting employer-sponsored care, you are actually getting similar territory most of your constituents are. >> again, what is happening -- >> is not about what is right or wrong. when you say you want to mirror your constituents -- >> i'm talking about millions of americans who are losing their health care. some have lost individual policies. people are already losing their employer-sponsored care. if you lose employer-sponsored care, you lose your tax advantage. you now have to purchase

after-tax dollars. members of congress are the only class, and our staff, when we lose our employer-sponsored cared, because of obamacare, we get tax advantage. that is just unfair. it is unjust. >> if congress were to take on this issue, what is the right outcome? get rid of the subsidy? what outcome would you like to see? >> if the administration wants the change the law to put members of congress back in a position -- this reporter was talking about most americans getting them lawyer sponsored care. they should come to congress and passed the law to do so. that would be one of remedy. i do not believe the president has the authority. he is just changing the laws here it the employer mandate was pretty specific. it said it should be and limited no later than 2013.

he thought he could change the law by decree. that is the point of this lawsuit. the president does not have that authority. he needs to be challenged on that. >> i would like to be successful in the suit, because i do want -- it is extremely important that members of congress have the exact same experience as the other millions of americans that are experiencing to their detriment the health care law. it is one of the ways that will force action. we have been receiving thousands of e-mails and letters. they are heart rendering. americans wanted to see this health care law succeed and they are shocked by the increase in premiums. they are shocked that the promises were broken. now they are saying their premiums double, triple. their out-of-pocket maximum's double and triple. the doctors that have kept him alive are taken away from them.

the treatments that kept him alive. here toprompt action start repairing that damage from this bill. limit future damage. it is extremely important to members of congress experience that same harsh reality, those exact same pains that the constituents are. that will not happen right now because this president -- democrats by and large went running to him for print -- special treatment and relief. that is wrong. >> a legal question. i am not sure who is best to answer this, but why is the court filing in wisconsin rather than d.c. the d.c. exchanges providing the care. years, in, for many wisconsin, had a rule that if you want to sue the government, you have to go where the government resides. we changed that recently, in recognition of the fact that

this has been the rule for a shouldme, that taxpayers be able to hail their government into court where they reside. we filed this lawsuit in the eastern district of wisconsin because that is where senator johnson lives. it is in wisconsin where his constituents, many of whom have lost their health care coverage and you are not able to get these premium subsidies from their employers are feeling that pain. we thought it was appropriate for us to file a lawsuit. sir? ofone thing that a lot people are talking about doing withovide their employees extra compensation to go by on

their own. would you consider that as a solution? it would not be tax free. it would be taxed. should congress do that? >> on a case-by-case basis, that is exactly what i will be considering per staff member. i am naturally frugal. for the three years that i have been here, i have understand my budget by at least a half-million dollars. not because i am frugal, but also because i knew this was coming. this is no surprise to me. i knew this was going to be the result. what is bizarre is coming from the private sector. when i hired somebody to work for me, i not only had to pay their salary, but i have a budget for their pension plans and unemployment insurance and health care insurance. i understand the full cost. when you come here, it is a bizarre system. budget isf congress' only used to pay salary.

somebody else provides all of the benefits. members of congress do not know what they cost. that is part of the problem. result, if this ruling were overturned, it would force members of congress to actually start considering an understanding how expensive these benefits are. i have allowed myself the flexibility to retain that budget to make those types of adjustments. i can help individuals to work their way through that. they can continue to afford to remain employed in my office. >> you sound like this is an obligation. how much does this cost? who is paying for it? >> we have had to go to senate ethics. we had two options. funded personally, which i was willing to do. way tod allow me, as a raise funds, to do this through my campaign committee.

that is another way that i can fund this. i can do a combination or all of one or all of the other. i want to raise funds to my campaign committee. not a lot of members would do that. you have campaign finance contributions. those can be precious dollars. i think this is such an important issue, i am more than willing to funded personally or utilize this campaign funds. that is how will be hunted. -- funded. --what do you say to critics you have a fellow congressman from wisconsin. have you said that this is a political stunt and will serve as a disk action -- to stretch and? -- distraction? what would you say to critics like him? >> i have a great deal of

respect for him. i am a little disappointed and puzzled by his reaction. this is an issue that republicans are, i believe, voting for this treatment. only two members of congress, ,hen this was brought before us every republican except for two voted in support of what i am trying to do in this lawsuit. i do not believe that this is trivial. this is not frivolous or a stunt. it is an important constitutional question. it is an important issue that deserves a full airing. deserves atly, it full public discussion as well. that is why i'm doing this. iris -- i respectfully disagree with him. expect to see any more

legislative proposals to address this issue? will you support them or do you think that this is the best avenue? >> i was hoping for a legislation fix. amendment, they were trying to add members of the administration. let's make sure the entire political class has the same experience. good or bad. same as the american public. i support the vitter amendment. senator harry reid refuses to allow a vote on them. the house attached it to one of their continuing resolutions. every republican voted for that except for two. when harry reid put that up to a vote to table that, every republican voted against tabling that. we wanted to have a real vote. one of the reasons that i held off filing this was to see if there would be legislative action.

i was hoping maybe the budget conference committee negotiations -- that might be something that we have extracted as one of our wins. not look like this will move legislatively, so my only alternative is a lawsuit. -- you arequestion saying that this will be set aside. part of this rule, it also clarifies that retired members of congress and their staff would not have to go into exchanges. is that something you are also challenging? ♪ that is not an issue i have challenge. we are talking about current members. >> some of the things that you have said, just a couple of items. you have mentioned or implied that members of congress should have to get their health care through the exchanges. looking through the wording, it says that the only coverage that

can be covered by the federal government is through the exchanges. are you saying that they have to get their coverage good exchange? the only thing the federal government can is -- i am notr defending the law. i want a fully repealed law. it is causing all kinds of damage. i do not want to defend how poorly it was written. it was written in a way that is quite clear. this lawsuit is about enforcing that law. enforcing what the president unrestrained.els >> do you think the law does not do -- >> they are perfectly free to. i have chosen that option myself. >> follow-up on that. right, that means

that effectively you have declined the subsidy by going to the private market. i wonder if you knew how many lawmakers have done that. my other question is, it is not clear to me how you are handling your staff. you said case-by-case. how is that working? >> i do not know how many people have declined. i am not critical of anybody who is just trying to follow the law. follow the rules as they are currently written, whether they agree with it or not. most republicans utterly disagree. we are trying to follow it. i was forced, as part of the standing issues, i was forced to take action that i believe is not legal. that is part of the issue. in terms of how my staff is handling it, they believe that they all have coverage. it is a wide spectrum of what they did.

some of them decided not to take employer-sponsored care. we will just, as we go back to reviews, we will talk to those individuals on an individual basis. what is it costing you? what kind of harm was done? let's look at your overall pay package. it will be fox about. how many took the employer-sponsored? >> they all are. i think that all of my staff members, everyone here in congress did take the employer contribution. i am not being critical of that. i am being critical of the president who knows no legal bounds. you are doing things by presidential decree. >> one more. >> [indiscernible] >> that is one of the canards. there will be a brain drain. we will lose a lot of senior staff. , onemeone is disgruntled

of the first terms that i learned as an outsider -- and never served in any kind of elected office. the first term that i heard, interviewing staff members was cashing out. the fact of the matter is, it is a constant issue with members of congress and their staff. how do you retain the good people? there are a lot of good people. we will have to review that on a case-by-case basis. time for one more? ok. thank you all for coming. i do appreciate it.

>> as senator johnson wrapped up, he will join his colleagues over in the senate as they get the second session underway of the 113th session at 2:00 eastern. senators will debate on extending long-term unemployment insurance. vote on they will janet yellen nomination to head the federal reserve. she will replace ben bernanke this month. you can see that on c-span 2. the house returns tomorrow. no legislative work on their agenda. the members will be brought to session. later this week, they will debate on a bill for security on the healthcare.gov website. we will have live coverage here on c-span. this afternoon at 2:00, we will be live from the brookings institution for cybersecurity and the threat of cyber warfare.

a journalist from the new york times will take part. that will be live this afternoon at 2:00. news editor npr will be speaking at american universities public affairs and advocacy institute about media coverage of lobbying. that gets underway at three:15. >> our message was this. as mothers, we are concerned. as first ladies, we are committed. as citizens of the world, we pledge to do all that is possible to stop this scourge. >> however differently may appear, there is far more that unites us than divides us. we are here to find common ground so that we may help ring new dignity and respect to women and girls all over the world. are such a vital

part of that very conversation. youhe coming years, all of will be building the businesses. you will make the discoveries and strapped in the laws and policies that will move our countries and our world forward for decades to come. >> monday, starting january 13, our original series, "first ladies" returns with the five most recent first ladies. from nancy reagan to michelle obama. monday -- a white house briefing is set to begin shortly. it was set to start 10 minutes ago. we do you expect when it gets underway, questions on unemployment insurance and health care. we will have that for you live when it started here on c-span. until then, the second session

of the 113 congress will start this afternoon. this morning, washington journal had a roundtable on the agenda. host: we're joined now by janet had of "wall street journal." give us your idea on the biggest issues facing lawmakers. guest: do democrats really want to spend most of this are focusing on economic issues that look at the inequality between rich and poor and measures like unemployment insurance and minimum wage to redress the imbalance. republicans want to keep the focus on the rollout of the dr. law. neither one of those seem destined to produce a lot of legislation. so keeping the government open agenda is the baseline of passing your basic fiscal bills that congress needs to keep the government running and from

going into default. host: one of the biggest parodies in defense legislation? guest: one of the biggest parodies will be to put together a defense appropriations bill. at the end of last year the budget deal restore some of the pentagon's cuts under sequestration, but the pentagon is now going to have to come forward with the budget plan. the relevant committees will have to go through that and also make some cuts, some more targeted cuts, but that will be a big focus, especially in january. host: how about thomases focus in 2014? janet, we spent a little time this morning talking about unemployment insurance.

guest: democrats have introduced with the support of one republican a legislation to extend unemployment -- emergency unemployment benefits for three months. these benefits actually laps at the end of december, but they have a bill that would restore them retroactively and restore them for three months. the bill needs to first pass a procedural hurdle that require 60 votes to invoke cloture. it is not clear whether the democrats if they get all 55 of the democrats and independents, than they need five more republicans and the only republicans who have publicly so far endorsed the bill is the cosponsor dean heller from nevada. there could be lots of republicans who might want to extend unemployment benefits, but their big complaint is that it is not 84. they think it should be adding to the deficit. once a vote is taken, it clears the cloture hurdle than it will

be on the floor for a little while. host: harry reid was asked about this on cbs this weekend. let's take a listen to what he had to say. it would seem to me that five republicans in the senate should agree with the republicans around the country. republicans around america want us to do something to extend these benefits. it is good for the economy. it is good for the country. everyone of these people as long-term unemployed, they get one of these checks, they spend the money. they don't put in the bank could help small business. that is why small business favors this. same reason why they want something done about minimum wage. the notice good for the economy. background checks, 90% of americans want that. republican congress opposes it. extending unemployment benefits,

75% of americans want that done. republican congress opposes it. host: break it down for us and ivan to the politics for this issue. guest: one thing we can't get away from him talking about 2014 is the midterm elections. there'll be a midterm election in november. that cuts both ways. both parties will be angling for the various positions and playing to the bases, but some issues cut across that in the sense that if enough of the voters really want this, i think you can see them coming together to pass something like that because all the memories of the house are up for reelection in november. one third of the senate will be as well. all these issues will be fought in the context of the coming election. host: let's go to congressman peter king. janet we will get your take. >> for a brief. of time, speaking for myself

i've always had a dollar is a dollar. but there has to be some compromise coming from the democrats. i don't want this permanent state of unemployment insurance. there are people who are looking -- this permanent state of unemployment insurance like europe. i would like to find a way to compromise, to extend unemployment insurance for a brief time, but also a burdens ands far as regulation. the ultimate answer is not unemployment insurance. the ultimate answer is more jobs. time, i couldy see the extension of unemployment benefits, but again, with restrictions of not having a permanent class of people on unemployment inch -- insurance and it doesn't create permanent dependency. >> with ning to pete king, you can hear someone does for compromise.

he said if it is temporary, and he's also talking about offsetting the costs. he's one of the most centrist republicans in the house. i don't know how far that attitude reaches. but speaker boehner said he would entertain it if it anduded some kind of offset job creation component. the key is to look to the republicans in states where unemployment is still high. it is no accident that dean heller is the only republican in the senate endorsing it. nevada has the highest unemployment in the country. maybe lamar alexander or bob corker might vote for cloture. it is not strictly a partisan issue. there is an economic component the very state-by-state. the first call comes from marilyn on the line for republicans. good morning. thanks for taking my call.

since more people are waking up to the scientific evidence that -- proving building seven was brought down in a controlled demolition on 9/11 and -- host: we will stick with the agenda. john is up next from new jersey on our line with democrats. good morning. i have a general comment that i would like to make. it does include the issues that you are talking about, but i think we need to consider one very important thing, and that is, 60 votes are needed every time a new issue comes up. there is an automatic acceptance. not only on the part of the press, but even senator reed, that the filibuster is being acted on. i think this is an outrageous condition that we have to put up with in this country. it is one of the reasons that congress is getting such low ratings. host: your response? guest: senator reed has been challenging this presumption

that everything needs a 60 vote threshold. and in fact, with a great deal of controversy, he instituted a rules change last year that reduced from 60 to 51, or a simple majority. the threshold for executive branch nomination for cabinet officials and other appointees. in judicial nominations. that was a big break in that assumption. was interviewed on tv yesterday about whether he would think about dialing back the filibuster on legislation as well. and he said, oh, i'm not thinking about that now. but it sounded like he left open the possibility that if things keep getting stuck in the senate, he might think about it even for legislation. host: i want to ask you briefly about the nsa. we heard senator rand paul suggest that he was going to sue with relation to this issue. in the national security arena, another issued -- >> we will leave this discussion from this morning to go live now

to the white house. it is just getting underway. [laughter] >> my wife says she likes it, so there. >> tmi. [laughter] >> happy new year, everyone. it is great to be back here with you all. i hope you had an excellent break. thee of you who travel with president, those of you who did not, we did everything we could to keep things quiet for you. hope that you come back and are as excited to be here as we all are. before i take questions on other subjects, i have with me today a familiar face, gene sperling, the presidents -- from the president's economic council. you may have seen him on a couple of shows yesterday talking about the urgent need to extend an insurance --

unemployment insurance benefits to 1.3 million families. he is here to talk about that issue and to take questions from you on that issue. and others in his purview, if you like. as we do normally with these things, if jean could go from the top and you can have all of your questions for him at the top and then go back to the main to take your questions on other subjects. i need a hard out at 1:55 p.m. at 2:00 with ag very important person. this is actually an homage to mark mueller, but he's not here today. where is he e >> he's back in the back. -- where is he? >> he's back in the back. >> ok, gene sperling, thank you very much. >> thanks, jay. there is no question we going to

2014 with more economic momentum. the implement rate is down to seven percent. we've had 2.3 million private sector jobs over the last year. we've seen housing up about 13 -- housing prices up about 13%. question is also a that we need to ensure the economy has more momentum and that we are recovering in a way that leaves no one behind. in terms of job growth, there's no question there are opportunities for us to move the ball forward as a country. the president has put forward a grand bargain on jobs, a proposal he announced at combineoga that would his newest tax reform, lower rates, have a minimum tax combined with an infrastructure initiative. bipartisaning with legislation on housing finance reform, immigration, manufacturing. thatt is also no question we have to make sure that this

no oney does leave behind. and that means addressing what is clearly perhaps the worst legacy of the great recession, which is the crisis of long-term unemployment that we still face in our country. while we have seen the unemployed rate come down, generally and particularly for those who are short-term unemployed, and those who are long-term unemployed continue to face a difficult labor market. we know that those who stay out of the labor force too long serious economic and psychological wounds. we as a country have to be committed to doing everything we can to help those who are long- term unemployed, find new jobs to support their families, and get them back on their feet.

that will take an attack on all fronts on all -- on long-term unemployment. mean, one, doing more to give the recovery more momentum, more job creation so that there are more jobs, so it is not three people looking for everyone job open. we must have much more -- many more jobs created. secondly, to work in partnership with the ceo's in our country to make sure that we are all in partnership to give those who are long-term unemployed the , to opportunities possible interview, to get a chance at a new job. we have been working together in partnership with many of our countries top ceo's and the president will in the coming weeks have more to say on that. but finally, we have to give the support forsic those who are out there and have worked in the past and are out there every day working hard to

find a new job. , we are auntry country that has each other's back in hard times. we have never over the last half-century cut off emergency unemployment benefits when long- term unemployment was even barely over half the rate that we have right now. now is not the time to start. i will tell you what today is. today's the day that 1.3 million americans start going to their mailbox and find that the check that they expected to get today is not there. is a temporary lifeline for families facing long-term employment, a check that puts food on their table and perhaps gas in their car they need to drive to interview for a new job, today is the day

-- today and tomorrow is the day that mailbox will be empty and those families will face hardship. in covering for the basic necessities. 2014, over the whole year, the number will be 4.9 million people who will find their emergency unemployment benefits cut off. this will affect 14 million families over the course of 2014. while today and tomorrow the days that 1.3 million americans will find that their temporary -- is not in their mailbox, today is also the chance we have to do something about it. there is a bipartisan piece of legislation supported by den --

democratic senator jack reed, and republican senator heller from nevada, that says we should extend emergency unemployment for three months right now. this will obviously give us more time to figure out what it -- what the best way is to deal with a longer solution for 2014. but we can act right now to help those 1.3 million people. in fact, the in these three months, that would help over 2 million americans. i talked to senator heller on friday. and he said, you know, for him, this was not ideology. was being a senator in a state with nine percent unemployment. it was talking to constituents every day who are often in economic distress who and ourely want a job understanding that we are a country that has each other's

back in these difficult times. i want to say just two point four taking questions. they are important to recognize. number one, you are only eligible for emergency unemployment benefits if you are actively looking for work. this can actually help encourage people to stay in the workforce and not get discouraged. because they have to be actively looking for work to be eligible for these benefits. popular worduse a among those of you who cover the fed, the emergency unemployment benefits are designed to taper off as a unemployment goes down. for example, when you talk about the fact that we have 46 extra emergency weeks, that is only for a state that has over nine percent unemployment. if you're unemployment goes beneath nine percent, then there are 10 weeks less available. percent,s under seven

fewer weeksre nine available. when it under 16%, there are and additional 14 weeks unavailable. under six percent, there are and additional 14 weeks unavailable. the president feels very strongly that this deserves the support of both democratic and republican senators, a bipartisan proposal to extend for three months. we believe this deserves to pass. >> as you know, republicans want this offset $6.5 billion for three months. is there any way of negotiating the offset for the three months and then using that as they present offset, the much larger cost, $35 million, over a full calendar year?

an urgent situation right now. as i said, today is the day. people have been cut off, but today's is the day that they find a check not there. the president believes we should pass this right away with no strings attached. is more in line with precedent than anything else. last 17 times in 20 years that it has been a tech -- it has been extended, no strings attached. that the previous president bush extended at emergency unemployment benefits, there was no paid for strings he and implement rate was lower each of those five times than it is today. i think that the compromise that is inherent in the heller-read bipartisan legislation is, let's move quickly and pass this three-month extension now. this will help americans

immediately and give us more time to have a larger conversation about what happens after the three months are over. you willing to offset the calendar year if not the three- month? >> what i said is, let's move quickly now because we are in urgent situation. we did not yet it passed in december. if we take step now, we will -- that will leave more time to have a broader discussion about how best to do it. you know, for the remainder of 2014 after that. our focus right now is on the legislation that is up there. it is the only bipartisan plan that has been there. there has been talk, but there has been one bipartisan plan, and it is to extend for three months on an emergency level. that is where our for kos is and that is what we want to encourage -- that is where our focus is and that is what we want to encourage people to support. then we can have an extension of

time to discuss what to do when that three months is over. >> is white house opposed to negotiating the offset? do it now,rt term, but if the republicans dry line on this, like they are saying right now that they wanted offset, is that something the white house is willing to negotiate on? >> our focus right now is to get this passed. out, as it to point said, people have already been cut off. , youe are right now today know, who maybe have as little as $150 a week, or maybe an average of $300 a week, but this was their lifeline, their basic support. when you have the first bipartisan proposal, winnie it could be passed right now with -- when itattached could be passed right now with no string attached when that was

the precedent before, the clear right thing for us to do now is to pass this measure now in its current form. and again, it is just for three months. is time for further bipartisan discussions about what else he might do to extend it after that. >> what would you say to republicans who are not necessarily worried about the fact that some people are not getting their insurance benefits today? they are simply worried about the fact that this saves money not to have any benefits. what you say to them? all,u know, first of extending emergency unemployment benefits is the right thing to do. .ased on our economic values these are our neighbors, our community members, fellow parents struggling to get by. it is also the common sense thing to do.

estimated that extendedent insurance in 2014 would mean an additional 1/5000 jobs, an additional .20% in growth. it leads to a multiplier of $1.50 helping in the economy. economically, but also just the right thing to do. i guess what i would say is, the reason you have had emergency unemployment benefits like this over 50 years, over democrat and republican presidents is that that some ofd perhaps when unemployment is at a low-level, most -- one can assume that most people who should be able to find work in some way. so you limit unemployment benefits 26 weeks.

but when you have nine states that are over eight percent unemployment, when you have rhode island and nevada at nine , when youemployment have historic levels of long- term unemployment, you know that just millions of people still desperately looking for work. they are eligible because they were working before. they are looking for a job. this is not their fault. they were not the ones who were packaging subprime securities. they did not ask to have a great recession. strugglenow have to with some of the hard legacy. the reality is, look, we are obviously pleased that the economy has more momentum. we are pleased to see unemployment overall coming down. we are pleased to see private sector jobs coming up. but again, we work for a president who wants a stronger recovery, who wants a recovery that leaves no one behind.

we could be an administration that just comes in here and nothing but the good news that has happened, or the improvement. but that is not what we are about. we are about helping people who are hard-working, responsible, and want to get back on their feet. are willingwhy we to point out that even amidst the stronger economic news we have seen in a stronger economic momentum, there is a real challenge in long-term unemployment and we care about those people. we are going to do everything we can to help them. have you in talking with some republicans changed their mind set? >> i would say many of us have been in contact with many people. to revealant conversations. i obviously have been in conversations with senator heller and his chief of staff. that we areure actively working this.

the [inaudible] >> i don't know. i'm not here to predict. i'm here to tell you it should pass. i really think there were a lot of really moving stories that i'm sure a lot of the papers here and around the country were responsible for. i think they were important because they did not just go through the numbers i did. they told the stories of real stories oftold people with compelling stories, they put- you know, the names and faces of people that clearly are responsible, hard-working, and have fallen in a tough situation through no fault of their own and are trying to get back on their feet again. that is who we are here to help. part of the larger discussion, is the white house open to further tapering the

unemployment insurance programs? there is talk of more reform. >> i think i would put that in the frame that i have put forward. we've got an urgent situation on our hands with 1.3 million americans are finding their benefits cut off. let's get this bipartisan three- month plan passed and i will give us time for more broader discussion and in-depth conversation on how to go forward after that. >> can you talk a little bit, either you or jay, about what the president has and personally this called down? about the vote that may or may not happen tonight. >> i would just say that the president has been active and he , wemade calls, but again

don't have much more to say after that. , ande doing what we can sometimes that's more helpful with private conversations. could be emergency been avoided if the president had fought harder on the budget plan to have these included in the plan that was passed last month? >> i went back and looked at our efforts and i found that the president of the united states had publicly called for extending emergency unemployment into 2014 seven times in 18 days. seven times in 18 days. i think i called for it first on november 14. again on november 17. jason furman put out an entire report, i believe my in the briefing room and spoke to you about it.

the president included it in his weekly address will stop he had a weekly address entirely on this issue. he included it on his statement on the agreement with brian murray. it was a significant amount of equality. on i think the president and the administration has made clear how important we thought this was to get done. we are not of the belief that the only way we should be able to work together is for somebody to threaten a shutdown. we made very clear that this ought to get done. lots of ways for it to get done. the most clear and present ways for the u.s. senate to start by passing bipartisan heller-reid legislation for tonight. if they are not getting checks today, you still would have had a chance to get a budget deal past head of that.

>> like i said, the president called for it seven times in 18 days. he called just as many of us were leaving. read and heller were putting their proposal forward. president, from his vacation, call both senators and asked how he could help. the it ministration has been out there continually. we doy have noted that not always have 100% control over the u.s. congress. but i think the record is pretty clear that the president and his white house and secretary of labor have aggressively been pushing for this, both in december, in the break, and as quickly as possible as we have returned. >> thank you very much. >> is the last time we are going to hear from you in this role or with this administration from this podium?

>> i don't know when jay is asking me back. here for allly be of january and probably quite a lot of february as well. >> [inaudible] [laughter] and i were talking yesterday and i'm quite confident that when march comes, i will be somewhere else. >> matt has to one broad question? >> yes. >> a lot of stories on the 50th anniversary. these policies have been building for a long time, decades. you are talking about his torque levels of long-term unemployment. 46 million people still in

poverty. how much responsibly does the president there for having -- for after having five years in office for some of this policy to take hold? >> on the broader question, i think there is no question that the war on poverty that lyndon johnson the cleared 50 years ago wednesday has made very important advances. there is just no question. in 1963, 51% of african- americans were in poverty and about 25% had graduated from high school. i think that one of the things -- have heard us talk about and i think you will see jason furman, of our council of economic advisers talk about more, that our government has started looking at a broader measure of poverty. but making sure that we are looking at all the things that people are doing, including the things like the earned income tax credit, food stamps. when you look at that measure, i think you will find that poverty has come down close to 40%,

perhaps 35% to 40%. there has been important progress. and it is important to understand that many of the things that have been done over the last 20 years have mattered. into --ple, when i came when i was first here in 1993, there was probably about 1.7 million americans above the poverty line because of the earned income tax credit. now, because of measures that have been done over the last 20 years, including president obama extending the earned income tax credit more for people with fore children, more reducing the marriage penalty, extending those, and there are 6 million people out of poverty. when you look at the refundable , maybe as many as 9 million people not being in poverty.

i think there's no question over the last 50 years things have been done wrong, but i think we have learned some lessons. i think both democrats and the public and have learned you have the incentives you are creating and that policies and designed to reward work. one of the reasons the tax important isen so that it is an incentive for work. you get that assistance as you are working. it has positive assistance and has been given positive support for the program. toan example, going back 1993, when you look at the alternative poverty measure, just the broader poverty measure , the poverty rate was actually -- in 2010, 2011, then it was in 1993. my first time in office -- than it was in 1993.

my first time in office, poverty was higher than it was off -- after the worst downturn since the great depression. in lookinge judging at all the different things we are doing. we should be willing to reform. i think there are things this president has done that made a big difference. the senate for budget and hasrity policy committee looked at this. everybody is focused on what is going to happen to the middle class tax really funny upper income tax relief. but the president has made a priority to fight for extending the earned income tax credit, the referring -- refundable part of the american opportunity tax credit, the child tax credit. he has shown his commitment. no politics in that, and not even much attention. it is just in his heart. and a very smart professor, professor dubay from amherst who

just came out with a report that many of you saw in the last few days that said if we were to raise the minimum wage to $10.10 , it is projected that will lift 6.8 million people out of poverty. it would make them less dependent on government programs. it would not add to the deficit one penny. some of the things you will hear from this president. more importantly, those are things we will fight to get done. if anybody suggest that somehow we are going to fight for emergency and implement extension for political reasons as opposed to it being the right thing to do, i have a really good solution. let's get them done right now in a bipartisan way anybody can share credit in doing something that is the right thing to do for the american people. thank you.

>> any other questions? >> i have a couple questions about the situation in iraq. the secretary said that they send soldiers to assist the iraqis. but i'm wondering [indiscernible] >> the united states maintains a strong elation should and commitment with and to the government of iraq. we remaining close contact, both from washington and our embassy in baghdad with a rack's -- iraq's efforts to defeat al and its amber alert group there. group there.la as secretary kerry said, we have made a significant commitment to

helping the iraqi government in dealing with that situation. and what secretary kerry's point also was, and i think this is a broader point about conflict in , is that this is something for the iraqis to take the lead on and handle themselves. but that does not mean we cannot assist them, and we have. we are working closely with the iraqis to develop a holistic strategy to isolate the al qaeda affiliated groups. successes insome diman the with the -- in rma with the police. it is too early to tell and make conclusions about it, but we are looking to provide an additional shipment of hellfire missiles as early as this spring. these missiles are one small element of that holistic

strategy, but have been proven effective at denying the safe haven zones it has sought to establish in western iraq. bean anadd that we will also adding 10 surveillance uad -- uav's and more later this year. these will help iraqis track terrorist elements within the country. we also provided surveillance balloons to the government a rock in september. in september. and we delivered more in december, bringing the total purchase to 30. this is a conference a package of assistance that we are in an effortiraq that they are leading in the government is responsible for carrying out. are saying that some of

what is happening on the ground in iraq is a consequence of the u.s. completely pulling out and they say that the administration should learn a lesson from that and not do the same in afghanistan. the president is looking at what is happening in a rack -- in iraq. >> i would say couple of things about that. i have heard members of congress suggested, but if they are suggesting there should be american troops fighting and they in falluja today, should say so. the president doesn't believe that. if they believe that we should not end our combat mission in afghanistan, they should say so. the president, when it comes to afghanistan, has made clear that he believes we should and can have a continuing mission they're focused on -- solely on -- training afghan troops and

counterterrorism. but being able to do that and to fill that requires the afghan government to sign the bilateral security agreement. and they have not done so. and as each day passes, it becomes harder to plan with our nato allies for the 2014 mission, because we cannot do afterithout a bsa signed it has been negotiated. and as you know, they were commitments by the acting government to complete that by the end of the air. >> but if he believes that the u.s. doesn't leave some small contingent there, even if their ,rimary mission is training does he believe that could leave a vacuum in afghanistan similar to what we are seeing in iraq? president's best policy is to maintain the focus solely as i have mentioned. but he cannot and will not in that absent of bsa.

which is why it is so important that the afghan government moved quickly to sign that agreement, which would then allow for preparation for 2014 under the conditions that i talked about. combat operations in afghanistan, but having a smaller contingent of american forces in afghanistan focus on counterterrorism and training afghan troops. i think it is important to know when you make this comparison, and it is an excellent question, that there was sectarian conflict, violent sectarian conflict in iraq when there were 150,000 u.s. troops on the ground there. this would nott be happening if there were 10,000 troops in iraq, i think, there's scrutiny.

the president believes we ought to suit -- pursue our national with regard to policy in iraq and afghanistan, and that is what he's doing. >> [indiscernible] sign the agreement? >> we never set a december 31 hard deadline, but it was certainly our preference to complete that agreement in 2013. it was consistent, as i just mention, with the goals set at the beginning of negotiations and reiterated by president karzai during his visit to washington last january. our position continues to be that if we cannot conclude a bilateral security agreement promptly, then we will be forced to initiate planning for a post- 2014 future in which there will be no u.s. or nato troops presence in afghanistan. that is not the future we are seeking. that is not the policy the

president believes is best. and we do not believe it is in afghanistan's interest. but the further we get into 2014, the more likely that outcome will pass. we will have to factor the lack of a signed bsa into our planning. >> how much longer will you give than to think about this? >> i do not have a specific deadline or other policy decisions to announce today. but i can tell you we are talking about weeks and not months. the clock is ticking. for the reasons i laid out. we cannot contemplate a continued presence there absent a signed bilateral security group agreement. bilateral security agreement, the planning necessary for a continued presence to take on

and training of afghan forces. it needs to happen early this bsa, and absent a signed we will have to plan for that contingency. >> we've got the serious peace talks coming up in -- syrian peace talks coming up in geneva. what role do you see the iranians play in this process? >> our position on that has not changed. in order to participate, iran would have to commit itself to the geneva communicate. the purpose of the geneva meeting on january 22 is to move forward on the principles laid .ut in the geneva communiqué obviously, you cannot participate constructively if you do not publicly do so. offsetployment, on the we hear from speaker boehner,

what is the reason for not being open to the offset? gene just said, we are now past the point in which one point 3 million americans will have their emergency benefits cut off. ?> it delays the process do you think offsets are damaging in some way? but the bill in the senate will be voted on soon. -- >> the bill in the senate will be voted on soon. it would extend benefits for just three months, and we ought to act on that, as gene said. it is also the case that all five times under george w. bush, as gene noted, the and exploit -- the unemployment insurance benefits were extended. and the unemployment rate was even lower than it is right now, seven percent, even though it is coming down. -- and in the latter

times that it was extended under president bush, the deficit was going down instead of coming up. we need to be mindful of our , but the fact is it has been much reported on and discussing here. it is coming down at the fastest rate since world war ii. which does not mean we do not need to be extremely mindful of how we need to spend our resources, but we have an emergency situation here. we have a bipartisan bill in the senate that can and should be voted on. it has majority support, and we hope congress will take action right away. that would give immediately relief -- immediate relief to these families and the fear that many of them face, not knowing if and when they will ever get those benefits back. time forll allow for discussions for the rest of 2014. anything about justice

sotomayor temporarily blocking with the affiliation health insurance. are you concerned that it undermines the mandate from president obama? >> i don't comment on pending litigation matters. but we remain confident that our final rules strike the balance of dividing women with free contraceptive coverage while preventing nonprofit religious employers with religious objections to contraceptive coverage from having to contract, arrange a, referred to -- or refer for such coverage. the goal of respect and concerns of nonprofit religious organizations that object to

, but you would have to talk to the department of justice. you are reading into the decision about what it means, and i'm saying that this is an ongoing matter that the department of justice would both at the hyatt -- the low level and the high-level . and i think we will wait to see if any further action is taken beyond what we've seen already. was it 2.1ed -- million people have enrolled for the marketplaces? can you tell us how many of those people are young people? how many are in that 18-34 demographic e >> -- demographic? availablea is not yet, but there are plans to make that data available as soon as possible. several states, who are running their own marketplaces, are reporting a good mix of people signing up.

and that is important to talk about what the overall goals here are. for march 31, the end of open open enrollment, the mix is a key element for this. and we have the demographic that foron to provide the it ministration. but we do not have at this point. >> why don't you have it? the states are able to give us this. >> not all 50 of them, but several of them have been able to provide this data. we will. it available as soon as possible. i think when you look at how we have dealt with data as it has become available over the past several months, both good and bad, we have done our best to provide it to you when we are confident about the accuracy of it. i am confident cms will do that. we do not dispute the notion -- if your question is why we are not providing data because there

is something about it we do not like, that is just wrong. we just don't have the data to provide. >> [inaudible] >> we don't. i certainly don't. and we don't have data that is ready to be released. what i can tell you is we do not dispute the notion that the mix is important. whatever the total figure is of people who enroll by march 31, the aggregate number of that is not as important as the overall makeup that you see within that population. the experts at kaiser said 40% need to be in that age group. is that the benchmark e >> i don't know -- is that the benchmark? benchmark,know the but a good mix is important. there are campaigns underway to reach as many people as possible. about the wisdom of taking advantage of these pop --

opportunities to sign up for health insurance. we will be, as we have been all along, being gauged to provide a product -- be engaged to provide a product that is clearly in demand. when you say soon, when is that you can >> i don't have anything more on that. >> one last thing. the president over the break enrolled in an individual plan. why did he do that? said, when it we occurred, this was largely a ,ymbolic move to demonstrate obviously his commitment, which i don't think could be any clearer to the affordable care act. you are correct. he gets his health care from the military, but he enrolled for that reason, because he said he would and because he believes

that as so many millions of americans have demonstrated in the last several months, it is that ish a product worth having. >> he did not enroll himself, right? his staff did it for him? i think they answer these questions several you -- several weeks ago. he did not physically enroll. i don't think dimon would doubt how busy the president is, or that anyone would doubt that this president is highly computer literate. but his assistant did the and rolling for him. >> you just said that the aggregate number at the end of march versus the demographic mix. why is the administration backing away from the enrollment figure that kathleen sebelius, mary tavener, and other wasrnations had them and it a legitimate and reachable goal? from was an estimate

earlier this year on how many they thought would come in. some estimates are lower and some are higher. this hashe first time been done, so it is hard to predict what the number will be. it is important to understand that there is not a magic number. 6 million and one person more than that the system collapses. the issue is that some estimates have been as low as 2 million. but what that makeup looks like, both demographically and geographically. all of these issues are important. we are not backing away from the number we put out originally. i think it is noted that 7 million is a fine target. but it will not determine whether the marketplace is functioning effectively. >> but he said, on september 30, and this is a direct quote, i think, it looks like 7 million thele having signed a by

end of march 14. it sounds like she is embracing that not just conceptually emma but she says that is what is success. is important -- because i think the conflation here is there is an estimate, one of 7 million by cbo. obviously, the more enrollees there are, that is a measure of success. effectively of how the market basis function, the makeup, the mix of the population enrolls, that is more important than the total number. that is why there are so many to reachnderway different populations with the options available to people for quality and affordable health insurance. >> that would be the definition ?f success, the mix >> as i just said, neither the secretary of health and human services or any expert in the field would argue that success

alone depends on the total number of enrollees. pass academic or intellectual scrutiny. obviously, the mix is important. getting a substantial number of and everybody would agree that the numbers have been significantly increasing in the last two months. and that number is expected to go up across the country. >> let me go back. on the question of iraq, there is a certain analysis that from arock to syria to lebanon -- rack to syria to lebanon that there is an affiliation of groups and american interests are in jeopardy in a way that they were not six to 12 months ago. does it ministration sure that anxiety? now that there is an unsettling spike in violence.

and how does the plan to respond? that theis no question violence in syria continues to be a problem, and as we have said all along, the more that and is not resolved through the political process that is required to resolve it, the more possibility that conflict will spread beyond the borders of syria, and we have seen some of that take place already. there is no question that there are conflicts that have to be resolved within these countries. iraq, syria, , the only resolutions to these conflicts is through a political process. we are working very closely with our partners and directly with reconciliationrt to help bring that about. that is what led to the geneva conference and the efforts we

are undertaking with the government of iraq, and obviously the lebanese of policy and state and disassociation with the conflict in syria. but in conflict with some of the stories you are mentioning is that somehow a greater american presence, troops on the ground, result in a different dynamic. obviously, it is -- it is hard to prove a negative, but as i said earlier, there was a great deal of sectarian conflict in thousands,ens of more than 100,000 u.s. troops were on the ground. >> some would argue that 10,000 troops backed the search, and then has created a vacuum. >> when there was a decision iraq togroups within

,ursue political reconciliation and in the case of a rock the sunni awakening for example -- of iraq, the sunni awakening for example, regardless of religious affiliation, there are those who will reject extremism. produced positive results in terms of a reduction in violence. and that is what we are working with the government of iraq to pursue again during his current stage of conflict. let me move around a little bit. christopher and then margaret. >> the first press briefing of the new year. have you discussed any insight into the president's news resolution, especially in dealing with coverage? thathave not had conversation with him in the context of new year's resolutions. i know that the president begins this year committed to working

with congress cooperatively and in a spirit of compromise to get things done, to help the american people, to help the middle class, to help our economy grow. he was heartened, as were many of us -- all of us here -- by the progress demonstrated in the budget resolution, the budget bill that passed i was negotiated by senator murray and chairman ryan. while that was modest, and we had knowledge at the time it was practice, atpast least the immediate past. and it was a positive sign. we are hopeful that might shadow -- foreshadowed more opportunities for cooperation and areas where there is agreement about how to invest in our economy. i think jeanne mention on one of the shows yesterday about how to mention on one of the

shows yesterday about how to reduce the corporate tax rate, and close a lot of loopholes, and part of that deal to invest heavily in the infrastructure in this country so we can create jobs today and a stronger economic foundation for the future. conference of immigration reform right opportunity for bipartisan corporation, given the by -- the broad bipartisan support around the country and in congress for taking that action forward. you will see from the start an effort by this president, from this white house, to find who we can work together with and compromise with republicans in congress to get things done on behalf of the american people. you will find a continued tomitment by this president not take congressional as the end of the sword. and by moving as he can

administratively and through his executive authority to advance an agenda that help the economy grow and to help people feel more secure. >> and out of personal note, how about you? >> i don't share my new year's resolutions. >> i wanted to check in with you on the iraq question. can you give us a sense of the president being more engaged in this? and how is what is happening there affecting u.s. calculus? >> on south sudan, the president is regularly updated on the situation there and we remain deeply concerned about the conflict in south sudan. we are working on multiple fronts to bring an end to the violence.

is in ethiopia and in support of talks between the two parties. he is pressing them to agree to a cease-fire. onsecretary kerry said sunday, these negotiations and to be serious and both sides need to listen to the region and the international community. the dispute cannot be solved through violence. the parties must work to find a peaceful, democratic way forward. if i could, i would like to add that it be meaningful and productive. members need to be present for discussions on political issues. to help move the talks forward, we urge the government of south sudan to uphold its commitment to release lyrical detainees immediately. i think i have time for one more. >> we've been talking a lot about iraq. how are the calculations going

with the iran negotiations and the afghan withdrawal? how are the talks in iran analogous to the situation with the troops in afghanistan and impacting out qaeda? ?- al qaeda >> i'm not sure how to answer that except to treat these issues specifically in terms of the action we are taking. i'm talking about the need for kabul to sign the afghan -- the afghan government to sign the bilateral security agreement. coming, we estimate, with our nato allies, preparations for the post 2014 mission. and at -- absent the bsa, that cannot include a troop resins. done work is still being by technical teams on the interim agreement. expect to show that fairly soon. iraq, i willrd to

repeat what i said before, which is we are committed to providing assistance to the government of within its efforts to work andal and regional leaders expel al qaeda affiliated groups from those areas. we're going to continue to do that to help them achieve that goal and help them discuss, at a think thelevel, as i national supervisor did the other day with an iraq you leader -- with an eyiraqi a spirit of reconciliation so the common interest of rejecting al qaeda is achieved.