the -- because of wave of blockbuster patents at the end of 2011 and 2012 which led to lower prices for previously expensive drugs. there's a rate adjustment for medicare skilled nursing facilities which reduced payments for 2012. also, there were reduced payment updates for most medicare providers resulting from productivity adjustment, mandated by the affordable care act. for healthcare services our main finding included faster growth in hospitals, and slower growth in prescription drug and nursing care facility spending. for healthcare payers be, we saw faster groi in medicaid and out of pocket spending.

the specific reasons for these trends will be explained in slides to follow. regarding the affordable care act, all provisions that have become effective since enactment in 2010 are included in our health spending estimates because they are reflected in our data that measure total revenues. while our historical data cannot parse out the spending that wpj directly the result of the a.c.a., the projections model show there was minimal impact from the affordable care act on aggravate national health through 2012. within specific services and payers, we can identify some of the provisions that affected spending for those sectors.

however, even within the specific sectors, the impacts were very small and in some sectors, the impacts were offsetting. for example, for private health insurance, programs that expanded coverage added to spending while the minimum medical loss ratio had a slight reducing effect. for medicare, a notable fact on spending was from reductions to medicare payment update or productivity adjustment particularly for hospitals. for prescription drugs the drug coverage discount program added to medicare spending while medicaid prescription drug rebate lowered medicaid spending. i'll start by walking through some of the trends by service. here are the services that we published in the national health expenditure account. the proportion of spending so

we're showing distribution of $2.8 trillion. over all these shares tend to stay constant from year to year. 32% of all healthcare spending goes to hospital services. the second largest category is for physician and clinical services at 20%. the third single largest category is for retail prescription drugs. in total these three services account for 61% of total national health spending. these were the gross rates between 2011 and 2012. four of these -- for these services. as we can see, there were mixed trends that occurred in 2012. because hospitals and physicians and clinics and retail prescription drugs account for

the largest shares of total spending, growth in factor tend to be the main drivers in healthcare growth. for spending for hospitals and physician and clinical services grew faster in 2012 compared to 2011. while spending for prescription drugs slowed. national health spending growth was also moderated by a slow down in spending on investment and research and health related equipment. for hospitals in this graph, we're showing the growth rates from 2008 through 2012. hospitals spending increased 4.9% in 2012 following slower growth in 2010 and 2011. reached $882.3 billion. in addition, sending among the main payers of hospital

services, medicare and medicaid all accelerated. for medicare, hospital spending growed at a faster rate. partially due to increase in medicare enrollment. some of this increase, however, was offset by the a.c.a. provision that reduced payment update for hospitals. for medicaid, although growth in hospital spending was still low in 2012, its rate of growth was still faster than in 2011. reflecting slightly better economic conditions as some states withdrew previous payment cuts and expanded care. here we're looking at spending growth for any significance and clin -- physician and clinical services. spending in this category increased by 4.6% in 2012 to reach $565 billion. also price growth slowed slightly in 2012, the use and intensity of physician services

accelerated. when examining trends by payer seekers that growth and out of pocket and private health insurance spending both accelerated in 2012. this increase growth was primarily due to increases in visits to doctor's offices as the economy continued to recover from the recent severe economic recession with consumer resuming spending on medical care that they may have postponed during the recession. for retail prescription drugs, total spending reached $263.3 billion in 2012. as you can see over the last few years, spending growth has fluctuated. the rate of growth in 2012 was just 0.4%, which was the same rate of growth as in 2010. in 2010 the low growth was influenced by sharp slow down in

use. in 2011 there was a temporary rebound and prescription drug spending grew by a faster rate of 2.5%. which is due to prices in brand names. in 2012 growth slowed again and this was driven largely up by a slow down in over all prices bayed by prescription drugs. first major influence on slower growth in prices was on the so called patent cliff or the wave of brand name patent expirations that occurred 2012 as numerous blockbuster drugs notably, lipitor and singular lost patents in 2011 and 2012. that led to lower cost generic versions of these drugs. also influencing the slower growth was continued increase in the generic dispensing ring. the dispense prescription that

were generic excluding branded generic increased in one year. s in large part due to many brands switching to generic status. among payers in 2012, we saw declines in out of pocket and private health insurance spending. this was influenced by the continued movement by three and four tier coinsurance and copayment structures. coupled with blockbuster drugs now being available on a lower cost here. i'm going to turn the presentation over to micah who will discuss more about the payers of healthcare in 2012.

>> thanks anne. i will start my portion of the presentation with the payers of healthcare spending. we will take a look at the chart that shows distribution of healthcare spending and the $2.8 trillion that was spent in 2012. we see health insurance accounted for 72% of all healthcare spending. within the health insurance category, we see that the single largest payer was private health insurance at 33% followed by medicare at 20% and medicaid at 15% on a rounded basis. outside of the health insurance category, we see that off to the left the next single largest category is out of pocket spending at 12%. it does not include any payments for private health insurance

premiums. round out the remaining payers, other third party payers and programs, investment and government public health activities account for the remaining 16%. focusing on the annual growth rates for 2012 and 2011, we can see that national healthcare spending increased slightly from 3.6 to 3.7%. among the four largest payers, we see there was faster growth in spending for out of pocket payments as well as spending for the medicaid program. however, there was faster growth was partially offset by slower growth in both private health insurance and in spending in the medicaid program. i'm going to go ahead and take a look at these major payer trends on the next few slides. starting with private health insurance, we see spending for premiums reached $917 billion

increasing 3.2% which equal to average annual increase over 2008 and 2012 period. enrollment growth may be a major factor. enrollment did reach 188 million in 2012, crossed by 0.8 million individuals or 0.4%. however, enrollment levels were still 9.4 million lower in 2012 than in 2007 at the start of the recent recession. analysis 2012, net enrollment gains contributed to the slow growth in premiums. these plans have lower premium levels by higher cautionary amounts that other type of plans that reached 19% share of all covered workers and a 31% share of the population in 2012. taking a look at the net cost of health insurance which isn't

pictured here which is the difference between premiums and benefits, it remains unchanged at $110 billion for 2012. however because spending for medical benefits grew faster than that, net cost ratio, are the shared premium attributed to nonmedical expenses dropped from 12.4% in 2011 to 12.0% in 2012. focusing on the trends for private health insurance, premiums remained low for both years 2011 and 2012 and benefits accelerated slightly from 2.9% to 2.2%. the slightly faster growth was due to increased spending growth for both hospital care and for physician and clinical care. that was offset by a decline in retail prescription drug spending for 2012.

focusing on the medicare program, we see that medicare expenditures reached $572.5 billion in 2012 and enrollment in the medicare program jumped considerably to 4.1% growth. over all medicare spending growth slowed. the slight slow down in medicare was decline for spending in nursing home care which fell by 4.2% in 2011 following increase of 9.9% -- sore i2.2% was decline in 2012 following an increase of 9.9% in 2011. total medicare spending grew 0.7% in 2012 slower than the 2.5% rate of growth in 2011.

now we can examine the medicare program in more detail splitting the program between fee for service and medicare advantage spending. we begin with fee for service expenditures which accounted for 73% of total medicare pending growth. slowed from 4.3% in 2011 to 2.7% in 2012. the slower growth fee for service spending was due to several factors including decline in spending due to one time payment reduction to recalibrate payments in 2012 following a large increase in payments in 2011 corresponding to the introduction of the new payment system for these type of facilities. also contributing with slower growth due to increased use of lower cost generic drugs when busters went off patent in 2011

and 2012. the a.c.a. reduced payment updates in 2012 for all part a and most part b providers. this was contributing to the slow down for fee for service spending. then taking a look at the medicare advantage program, we see that spending increased 10.2% which is acceleration from the 7.0% in 2011. faster growth in the m.a. program was driven by 10% increase in enrollment. the 4.1% increase, over half the increase can be found if the medicare advantage program. medicare advantage spending growth slowed due to the increased enrollment from the baby boom population but also due to the implementation of the a.c.a.'s new payment mechanisms to linked to benchmark payment rates which effectively lowered the increase and total medicare advantage payments. in addition, the a.c.a. required

plans quality rates to factor into payments beginning in 2012. now looking at the the medicaid program, spending for federal and state reached -- increasing 3.3% following growth of 2.4% in 2011. the pick up in the rate of growth was primarily driven by faster growth in hospital spending as well as facer spending growth in other health residential and personal care. these two categories account for over half of all spending in the medicaid program for 2012. even with the faster medicaid spending growth, both 2011 and 2012 were still two of the lowest annual rates of growth in the history of the medicaid program excluding 2006 when part d was implemented and it changed the way medicaid paid for some beneficiary prescription drugs. the reason for the low level spending in growth in 2012 was mainly due to slower enrollment as the economy continue to

recover and efforts by states to control costs following the expiration of enhanced payments by the federal government mandated by the american recovery and reinvestment act. on this slide, we illustrate spending for the medicaid program from 2008 to 2012 for both state, local and federal government. the portion of medicaid spending financed by the federal government declined for the second year in a row, down 7.2% in 2011 and 4.2% in 2012. this was due to the expiration of these enhanced federal matching rates which were in effect in october of 2008 through june of 2011. these enhanced matching rates caused the share of rates to increase to approximately 67% in 2010. when program expired in 2011 this year fell and by 2012 the

share returned. now switching gears, we're going to take a look at the sponsors of healthcare spending. we can see that the businesses households and government entities and other private revenues can be identified. the household healthcare spending which includes out of pocket spending as well as premium payments made by employees and individuals among other things remain steady at 28% share for 2012. slightly faster household spending growth in 2012 occurred mostly

the federal government share at 26% has declined due to substantial slow down in spending in 2010 and 2011 as well as the decline in 2012 and the decline in 2012 was due to the expiration of enhanced federal matching rates but also contributing was the expiration of early retirement and reinsurance program for 2012. we can see that state and local government share at 18% of total healthcare spending recently increased as growth and state local government spending was much faster in 2011 and 2012. at this point, i want to wrap up our presentation by going over our main findings. we see that healthcare spending

increased 3.7% in 2012 which was the fourth year of relatively low and stable growth. health spending reached $2.8 trillion, which was $8915 per person. after benchmark recessions has been made to the gdp, we see that the share of the economy devoted to healthcare spending was to 7.3% in 2011. over all spending was relatively stable due to mixed trends we mentioned. also for the medicaid program and for out of pocket payments. while spending growth slowed for retail prescu)jz drugs, skilled nursing facilities and private health insurance and the medicare program. from a sponsor perspective, we see that the distribution of healthcare spending has remained relatively unchanged with the exception of the shift from the federal to the state local governments to mainly to the expiration of the ira and

temporary enhanced funding. i want to thank you for your time and attention. i will turn the presentation back over to john. >> we'll take your questions if ou could identify yourself and your organization, that would be helpful for the panelist. >> jim, of the dallas morning news. wondering if some of the factors you described like one off events. like the declinement in investment and hospitals because of the end of the spending

program end of patent protection for certain drugs. yet, we've had a few years now of slower growth. was 2012 a one off because of these specific factors and we should expect more next year? or was this part of a trend a continuation of a trend that you've been seeing? >> i'll go ahead and start with that. the trends that we've seen in the last few years are consistent with historical relationship that we've seen between health spending and over all economic growth as anne mentioned when she showed the slide with gdp growth. as you mentioned, there were definitely some one time factors that impacted 2012. you listed a number of them that we covered in the presentation as well. what we can tell you is that the period of stability is

consistent with the historical experience when the share of gdp tends to stabilize after an over all economic recession usually two to three years. that was shown on the slide where we had the health spending gdp trends and the share of gdp. the reason that happens is it takes several years for the recessionary effects to work their way through the health sector and through the health system. what we're saying in the report is that the slow growth we've seen over the last few years is consistent with the historical f one time factors that impacted 2012 including the patent cliff and the other factors you mentioned as well. >> the 39% increase in medicare enrollment is not a one off phenomenon. continuation of a trend that may increase based on your reading of demographics? >> that was primarily because of

the baby boomers who started enrolling in medicare at the end of 2011. as far as the future, we can't answer that right now. we have medicare enrollment trends that the trustees publish and analyze. for us, we're just stopping at 2012 and that was the highest rate of growth in medicare beneficiaries in 39 years. >> but that population is not going away. >> yes. >> john. >> i wonder if you can put the slower than gdp growth in historical perspective and also share your thoughts on whether that might continue?

>> i think aaron statement about how this is the continuation of something that we have seen in the past. the slight goal whereas health spending as a share of gdp tend to stabilize after the end of a recession. that cycle has not been broken. we are continuing to see that. >> just in a historical contention oh text -- context, john mentioned in his opening remarks difference between the average annual growth between gdp and health spending that health spending has grown faster. i don't know the exact numbers. i think over two percent faster over time. >> when was the last time there was a decline in gdp share? >> it declined by a very small percentage point between 2010 and 2011 but prior to that it

was 1997. >> thank you. >> the report mentions a slower growth in investment health related equipment. do you have any data suggestive the demand and if not, do historical trend suggest that's going to spike back up? >> we got our data from the bureau of the census. that was a deceleration that just came straight out of our data source. there was a big revision happened between last year's data and this year's data which sort of increased the growth rate for 2011 higher than what was previously reported. it was a revision. it increases last year's growth rate. we're seeing a return to normal

yet. >> julie. >> julie from npr. i'm puzzled in your sponsored data in the share of household spending not going up. we keep hearing more and more about employers passing more costs on to their workers in terms of higher deductibles those two things don't seem to be going together. is there something offsetting that? i'm puzzled by the idea that is staying constant when there's so -pocket for their own spending. >> the household share has more than just the out of pocket payments. it also has consumers payments towards medicare part a. and part b premiums. households out of pocket only

represents about 40% of that. out of pocket spending which is the coplacements and deductibles did accelerate slightly from 3.5% to 3.8% growth. it did have a slight up tick in 2012. the household, you might not be able to see that because of the category contains more than out of pocket spending. but the private business side also still in effect from the end of the recession, there's more contributions to private health insurance plans as people are gaining their jobs. there's shifts within the sponsors as we come out of the recession that may or may not be visible to the distribution of spending that's occurring. >> i can walk you in the categories real quick. -- >> use the mic if you would. >> sorry. employee and self-employment

contributions and voluntary payment, medicare hospital trust funds and premiums by individuals and all of these categories accelerated in 2012. our data is picking up an acceleration, it's just in relative to the other categories within the sponsor that we're not seeing increase in the share. >> did you guys break out durable medical equipment as an expense or did it go down or up? >> it remains relatively stable. >> do you know what is the amount? >> it was about 5.6%. it's been that way for three years now. >> on page 74 it stays the prescription drug use was picked by the availability of lower cost generic drugs. is that three quarters of all

expense prescription or three quarter of generic drug prescription cost $10 or less? >> all prescription dispensed. the data source on that is i.m.s. health. all dispense prescription, yes. >> washington post. you repeatedly say this is a historical trend that health spending tends to stabilize after a recession. you don't explain why this is the case. could you explain why this is the case. why health spending stabilizes? is it just for example inputs have lower price increases. second part of my question, would be even though price account for rest of the over all increase in year, they seem to represent the largest share of the increase in spending. what is that increase and how

does it compare with the past? >> the first part of the question in regards to what were the specific reasons why health spending has stabilized. it takes time for contract to work their way through the health system to be negotiated in advance. in the past and we see it now, health spending is growing faster than gdp in times of recession. it takes time for contracts -- aaron, do you have any more on that? >> one of the reasons why we see gdp fall during the recession and then we have this lag impact where we don't see health spending come down, there's contracts in the healthcare sector that are negotiated more

than a year in advance. there is also the availability of coverage through public programs so as people may lose their job, they may become eligible for medicaid. some individuals are able to keep private health insurance coverage through cobra and spouse's policy. there's also changes in consumer and employer behavior in response to changing economic circumstances. employer decisions on which types of coverage made the generosity of coverage as well as individuals on which type of services to consumer. those types of decisions are not often immediately impacted during a recession. you see those changes in behavior occur several years after the recession. when you get -- you have the slow down or in the case of the past recession, the decline in gdp, several years after that as they start to converge, health spending growth rate, that's when you get the stabilization

in the share of gdp that we've seen after the recession that we showed on the chart. >> the second portion your question dealt with prices and the portion that it makes of total health spending increase. for national health expenditures, what i showed on the graph was that national growth per capita increased 3% in 201z and in 2011, the per capita increase was 2.9%. >> my question is different. what portion of increase in health spending reflects price and how does that compare with the past? >> that was what we're showing for price growáh is 1.7% out of 3%, which is a little more than half is attributable to price. in comparison to last year that

was a drop. last year it was close to 80% prices made up of total national health spending growth per capita. we don't have national health expenditures brzken out by price further back than 2004. in the recent past, this has been the lowest rate of growth in prices. the recent past, this has been the lowest growth rate in prices. >> in the article on exhibit four visually you can see the nominal growth rate. this is a per capita chart but it shows the bars on that exhibit. it showed contributions of prices verse nonprice factors to nominal health spending growth. >> other questions? >> the m.a. star rating

demonstration, do you guys have a projection of what a.a. spending growth would have been had that demonstration not been in place? demonstration m.a. plans for more lower quality scores than otherwise would have happened. >> no we don't. that's outside the scope of our project. we don't have those figures. >> are you able to quantify the impact the affordable care act on spending growth? you said it had a minimal effect. i was wondering if you're able to attach numbers to that >> over the course of three years, 2010 through 2012, it had

an effect of less than.1 percentage over all level. total. less than .1 percent. positive. >> over the years, economist had attributed technology development and diffusion as a major factor in the increase in spending. i don't know exactly how joe defined technology but is there any way to break that out and attribute some percentage to technology? the way we put the historic national health expenditure accounts together, we're not able to parse out the spenting

growth in this project. specifically attributed to technology. we mentioned couple categories where we can look at trends and the equipment that's purchased bethe health sector and some of the technology that filters through that. we don't have a way to break that out. >> the category m.d.s and clinical services, what's the difference there? what do you put in the clinical service bucket that isn't payments to physician? >> that's mainly emergency care centers and ambulatory centers. >> it slightly goes to physician owners and their involvement in investment? >> it could. >> thank you, i have a question about -- >> please identify yourself. >> jeff young with the huffington post i wanted to ask

about the individual insurance market. to the extent to which premiums for exchange plans maybe higher than products currently on that market. do you expect to see a measurable effect on the rates of premium growth or the rates of car sharing among people with insurance over all in future years because of changes happening in that market. sore it it too small piece of the pie to make much of a difference? >> that's another one we wouldn't have indication of right now. we're still not sure of the impact that would have. we have to wait until we see data which would be -- 2014 data won't be available for two more years. at this time, we don't have the answer to that question.

>> john it's steve with npr. it seems to me, people who might want to take some comfort from this decline in the rate of growth and healthcare should not take comfort because it basically what's happen historically after a recession. price growth stabilizes. maybe we're near record lows because we're through a record great recession. is that the case? are you saying there's no change in the long term trends here? >> what we're saying in the article is that the relatively low rates of growth that we've seen over the last four years are consistent with the historical tend. we don't characterize those

trends. it's consistent what we've seen in post recessionary periods in the past. >> do you expect difference between gdp growth and rate of growth in healthcare to go forward with 2.2%? is that no change there? >> as i mentioned, this is a historical project. we only have taken the data and estimated it through 2012. what we've seen through 2012 is consistent what we've seen in the past. >> i know this is looking into the future again and this might be a little bit granular. is there any attention -- anticipation that will allow you to start accounting for differences in payment policy

and hospital outcomes and differences in spending due to your drugs and medical devices. the reason i ask because, there does seem to be more emphasis on payers on therapeutic and diagnostic products that change outcomes. the great hope you can cut down on readmissions. if you don't have that kind of data and analytical tools, is there any anticipation you might acquire that in the future? >> we use high level data thrilled down. in house we only have medicare and medicaid data we can drill down to claim controversial explore the type of things you're suggesting. we leave the research and other

things up to the experts. our top level basically originates from the census and we supplement them with other national data sources. depending on how low we can go into the data, sometimes we can't and sometimes we can't answer those questions. >> revision in gdp was affected by the department of commerce last year. how much did that drop share of health expenditures in over all gdp? >> health spending share would have been 17.911%, due to the revision, it was 17.2%. >> washington post.

i have a quick clarification. you mentioned the affordable care act less than .1%. what that .1% applies to. is that the rate of growth? >> no, that was on the level. it was referring to a dollar level. over three years from 2010 through 2012, .1% >> .1 percent or .1 percent point? >> .1%. >> the amount we're spending on healthcare is possibly as much as .1% less over the three years? >> actually it added to spending. >> got it. so we're spending .1% as much as .1% more on healthcare than we would be without the affordable care act? >> correct. >> thank you. >> one other clarification about

share of gdp taken by healthcare. in 2011, it was 17.3, does that number reflect to adjustment in gdp? >> yes, all of our shares are revised to 1960. the bureau of economic analyst published their new gdp. >> last question. >> i wondered, do you have any additional data available that breaks out the sponsor spending by type of household? you know that household spending has remained constant over the last few years. i wonder for medicare household, is that different than privately insured household. >> under household, we can't break it up like that. we do have a couple

subcategories that you can get some additional detail. like payments. we know what amount households are paying to their private health insurance. we know how much households are paying for their medicare. we know what they're paying towards for their employee share private insurance. what they're paying their share of payroll taxes and then what is out of pocket costs. from that you can figure out where the households are falling. >> presumably, if there is more cost sharing going on in the

individual market, for example, that maybe offset by other things happening in medicare. you're not really able to pull out sort of what is going on out of pocket spending really. >> most of our data comes in top down. you would have to go to another survey or another research. >> okay, if there are follow up questions, is there an e-mail address? anybody like to volunteer to field. okay. any questions, she'll funnel them to c.m.s. we thank you for your presentation, your data and we'll close.

>> as you can see the light is still on at the u.s. capitol. the senate is still in session. the senate confirmed janet yellen. she's been vice chair since 2010. she's been a strong advocate of fighting unemployment and the policies designed to push the economy. janet yellen will begin her four year term on february 1st. change in schedule, after the vote on janet yellen senators decided to postpone vote on

extending unemployment benefits until tomorrow morning. republican senator john cornyn asked for the change so more senators can be present for the vote. today is the first day of the 2014 session after two week winter break. al qaeda fighters last week seized control the city of fallujah. today in washington, state department spokeswoman -- she reiterated comments from secretary of state john kerry that the u.s. will not send military forces back into iraq. >> the situation in iraq is completely out of control. there was talk that the u.s. may be preventing drones. the iraqi with drones without getting the al qaeda -- could you comment on those? >> let me give you a quick

updates on iraq. it will answer some of your questions. we're continuing to follow of events in anbar very closely. we would note that a number of tribal leaders in iraq have declared open revolt against isil. they have had some success early success along these lines. yesterday i think the white house provided a read out between deputy national security advisor and iraqi national security advisor. just couple quick words we're providing them, we have an ongoing close partnership on counterterrorism issues. we are absolutely standing by them to help them in this fight. we are continuing to accelerate our foreign military as delivery to iraq are looking to provide

additional shipment of missiles as early as this spring. these missiles are one small element of holistic strategy here. in addition to these, we will be providing ten eagle surveillance u.a.v.'s in the up coming week, and 48u.a.v.'s later this year. these will help the iraqis track terrorists element operating within the country. we also obviously have another things we're providing to them but we're also continuing to advise and assist the iraqis in developing strategies with the understanding that the security operations only work in the long term with political initiative and outreach. that's kind of where things stand. i'm sure you have follow ups. >> very quick follow up. you said u.a.v.'s. you have anything on drones?

>> are you talking about -- u.a.v. is the lack of a better term. >> i understand it. there's talk that the u.s. maybe taking that step in iraq. is that something that you would support? >> each country is very different fighting terrorist. i know there's been a lot of rumors out there about this. people tend to focus on one type of assistance or another. we're focused on providing assistance, working with the iraqis to continue building their capacity. this is the fight that they are going to have to have and they're having right now. we are certainly standing by to support them. >> there's so much investment in iraq and so on.

>> i've repeatedly answered every country is different and we're not providing these. >> the secretary was rather emphatic saying that u.s. forces would not be going back in to help the iraqi government because there is no agreement that would allow any such deployment. is he making this comment because of domestic political pressure for the u.s. to do something about iraq? or was he making these comments because of behind the scene -- >> i think he was making them in response to a question. i don't think there's any sort of back story behind what led him to make these comments. he was making the point what we're seeing in iraq is long standing sectarian tension that we all are very familiar with.

they are being exploited by terrorists operating. there's no long term counterterrorism strategy that involves u.s. troops in iraq. when we left iraq at the end of 2011, iraq had an opportunity and they still have an opportunity to move away from violence, to choose their future as we do we will be a partner with them. he was answering a question about whether or not that's under consideration. >> as part of of our series with first leaders. c-span spoke with rosalynn carter and also spoke with steve ford who preceded mrs. carter as first lady. you can see those -- those interviews tonight on c-span >> our message is this, as mothers who are concerned, as

first ladies who are committed and citizens of the world, we pledge to do all that's possible. >> however different we may appear, there is far more that unites us than divides us. we are here to find common ground so that we may help bring new dignity and respect to women and girls all over the world. >> all of you are such a vital part of that very conversation. because in the coming years, all of you will be building the businesses, you'll be making the discoveries and drafting the laws and policies that will move our countries and world forward for decades to come. >> monday starting january 13th our original series first ladies influence image returns with the five most recent first ladies.

from nancy reagan to michelle obama. monday at 9:00 eastern live on c-span and c-span three and also on c-span radio and c-span.org. >> c-span wñ bring public affairs events from washington the room at congressional hearings, white house event, briefings and conferences and offering complete gavel to gavel coverage of the house. we're c-span, created by the cable tv industry 34 years ago and funded by the local cable or satellite provider. now you can watch us in hd. >> will top -- those benefits expired last week cutting off payments for 1.3 million jobless americans.

>> my wife says she likes it. >> t.m.i. >> happy new year everyone. it is great to be back here with you all. i hope you had an excellent break. those of you who traveled with the president, those of you who did not, we did everything we could to keep things quiet for you. we hope that you come back as excited to be here as we all are. before i take questions on other subject, i have with me today

familiar face, gene, the director of the president's national economic council. calling on the urgent need for congress to extend expired unemployment benefits to 1.3 americans. gene is here to talk about that issue. to take questions from you on that issue and others in his purview. if gene can go to the top, you can have your questions at the top so we can let him go back to work. i will remain to take your questions on other subjects. i had a meeting at 2:00 with a very important person.

i'll give you gene. >> thank you. thanks jay. there's no question we go into 2014 with more economic momentum, unemployment rate is down to 7%. we've had 2.3 private sector jobs over the last year. we've seen housing prices up about 13%. there's also no question that we need to ensure the economy has more momentum and we're having a recovery that leaves no one behind. in terms of job growth there's no question there's opportunities for us to move the ball forward as a country. the president put forward a grand bargain on jobs a proposal he announced in chattanooga that will combine business tax reform that would lower rates. have a minimum before earning tax combined with initiative infrastructure. we're working on bipartisan

legislation on housing finance reform on immigration on manufacturing. it's also no question that we have to make sure this recovery does leave no one behind. that means addressing what is clearly perhaps the worst legacy of the great recession, which is the crises of long term unemployment that we still face in our country. while we've seen the unemployment rate come down, generally and particularly for those who are short term up employed, those who are long term unemployed continue to face a very difficult labor market. we know that those who stay out of the labor force too long often suffer 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's going to take an attack on all fronts on long term unemployment. ...

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. the check that 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 and tomorrow is the day that mailbox will be empty and those families will face hardship. in covering for the basic necessities. over 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 lifeline 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 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 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. this was being a senator in a

state with 9% unemployment. it was talking to constituents every day who are often in economic distress who desperately want a job and our understanding that we are a country that has each other's back in these difficult times. i want to say just two point before 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. secondly, to use a popular word 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 9% , then there are 10 weeks less available. if it goes under seven percent, then there are nine fewer weeks available. when it under when it is under 6%, 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? >> we have 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. that is more in line with precedent than anything else. 14 of the last 17 times in 20 years that it has been extended, no strings attached. all five times that the previous president bush extended at emergency unemployment benefits, there was no paid for strings attached and he and implement -- unemployment rate was lower each of those five times than it is today. i think that the compromise that

is inherent in the heller-reid 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. >> are 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, 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? i know, short term, do it now, but if the republicans draw a 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. i just want to point out, as i said, people have already been cut off. people are right now today, you 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, when it 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. there 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? >> you know, first of all, extending emergency unemployment benefits is the right thing to do.

based 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. it has been estimated that unemployment insurance extended in 2014 would mean an additional 230,000 jobs, an additional 0.2% in growth. it leads to a multiplier of $1.50 helping in the economy. it is smarter 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 we understand that some of perhaps when unemployment is at a low- level, 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 8% unemployment, when you have rhode island and nevada at nine percent unemployment, when you have historic levels of long-term unemployment, you know that there are 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. and they now have to struggle 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 tells you 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. and that is why we are willing 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. i do not want to reveal conversations. i obviously have been in conversations with senator heller and his chief of staff. you can be sure that we are actively working this. >> what does the vot count look like? >> 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 people and told stories of people with compelling stories, stories -- you know, they put 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. >> as 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 -- that 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 doing to get this called down? and talk about the vote that may

or may not happen tonight. >> i would just say that the president has been active and he has made calls, but again, we don't have much more to say after that. we are doing what we can, and sometimes that's more helpful with private conversations. >> could the 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 entirely on this issue. he included it on his statement on the agreement with brian murray. it was a significant amount of his speech on inequality. 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. and there are 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. reid and heller were putting their proposal forward. the president, from his vacation, call both senators and asked how he could help. the aministration has been out there continually. you may have noted that we do 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. i will probably be here for all of january and probably quite a lot of february as well. >> [inaudible] [laughter] >> jeff and i were talking yesterday and i'm quite confident that when march comes, i will be somewhere else. >> can i ask you one broad question? >> yes. >> a lot of stories on the 50th

anniversary on the war on poverty. these policies have been building for a long time, decades. you are talking about historic levels of long-term unemployment. 46 million people still in poverty. how much responsibly does the president there 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 dclared 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 you 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. for example, 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 three children, more for reducing the marriage penalty, extending those, and there are 6 million people out of poverty. when you look at the refundable

tax credits, 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 to look at the incentives you are creating and that policies are better and designed to reward work. one of the reasons the tax credit has been so important is 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. as an example, going back to 1993, when you look at the alternative poverty measure, just the broader poverty measure, the poverty rate was

actually lower in 2010, 2011, than it was in 1993. my first time in office, poverty was higher than it was after the worst downturn since the great depression. we should be judging in looking 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 priority policy committee has 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 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. those are some of the things you will hear from this president. more importantly, those are things we will fight to get done. if anybody suggests that somehow we are going to fight for

emergency unemployment 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 will not send soldiers to assist the iraqis. but i'm wondering [indiscernible] >> the united states maintains a strong relationship and commitment with and to the government of iraq. we remaining close contact, both from washington and our embassy in baghdad with iraq's efforts to defeat al qaeda and its umbrella group there.

we have, as secretary kerry made a significant commitment to -- we have, as secretary kerry said, 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 the region, 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. we have seen some successes in rmadi 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. i can add that we will also be providing 10 surveillance 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 of iraq in september. and we delivered more in december, bringing the total purchase to 30.

this is representative of the comprehensive package of assistance that we are providing to iraq in an effort that they are leading in the government is responsible for carrying out. >> some 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 iraq. >> i would say couple of things about that. i have heard members of congress suggest this, but if they are suggesting there should be american troops fighting and dying in falluja today, they 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 focused on -- solely on -- training afghan troops and counterterrorism. but being able to do that and to fulfill 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 that without a bsa signed after it has been negotiated. and as you know, they were commitments by the acting -- afghan 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 primary mission is training, does he believe that could leave a vacuum in afghanistan similar to what we are seeing in iraq? >> the president's best policy

is to maintain the focus solely on the missions i have mentioned. but he cannot and will not in the absence 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. ending the 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. so the idea that this would not

be happening if there were 10,000 troops in iraq, i think, there's scrutiny. the president believes we ought to pursue our national security with regard to policy in iraq and afghanistan, and that is what he's doing. >> do have a new deadline for when you like to see the afghan people signed the bilateral security 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 come to pass. we will have to factor the lack of a signed bsa into our planning. >> how much longer will you give them 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

agreement, the planning necessary for a continued presence to take on counterterrorism and training of afghan forces. it needs to happen early this year, and absent a signed bsa, we will have to plan for that contingency. >> we've got the 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 communiqué. the purpose of the geneva meeting on january 22 is to move forward on the principles laid out in the geneva communiqué. obviously, you cannot participate constructively if you do not publicly do so.

>> on unemployment, on the offset we hear from speaker boehner, what is the reason for not being open to the offset? >> as gene just said, we are now past the point in which one -- 1.3 million americans and their families will have their emergency benefits cut off. >> it delays the process? do you think offsets are damaging in some way? >> there is a 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 unemployment insurance benefits were extended.

they were unpaid for 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. when it comes to the need to be mindful of our deficit, 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 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.

and it will allow for time for discussions for the rest of 2014. >> anything about justice sotomayor temporarily blocking religious affiliation with the 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 providing women with free contraceptive coverage while preventing nonprofit religious employers with religious objections to contraceptive coverage from having to

contract, arrange, pay, or refer for such coverage. the goal of respect and concerns of nonprofit religious organizations that object to contraception, 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 comment on, both at 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. >> we learned -- was it 2.1 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? >> the data is not available 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 enrollment, the mix is a key element for this. and we have the demographic information to provide that for the administration. 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. we will make 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? >> i don't know the benchmark, 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 opportunities to sign up for health insurance. we will be, as we have been all along, 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? >> i think, as we said, when it occurred, this was largely a symbolic 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 very much a product that is worth having. >> he did not enroll himself, right? his staff did it for him? >> i think we answered these questions several weeks ago. he did not physically enroll. i don't think anyone would doubt how busy the president is, or that anyone would doubt that this president is highly computer literate. but his assistant did the enrolling 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

incarnations had them and it was a legitimate and reachable goal? >> it was an estimate from earlier this year on how many they thought would come in. some estimates are lower and some are higher. this is the first time this has 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 people having signed a by the end of march 14. it sounds like she is embracing that not just conceptually emma but she says that is what is success. >> what is important -- because i think the conflation here is there is an estimate, one of which is 7 million by cbo. obviously, the more enrollees there are, that is a measure of success. but in terms of how effectively 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 efforts underway to reach different populations with the options available to people for quality and affordable health insurance. >> that would be the definition of 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. that would not pass academic or intellectual scrutiny. obviously, the mix is important. getting a substantial number of enrollees, 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 iraq 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 the administration sure that anxiety? now that there is an unsettling spike in violence. and how does he plan to respond? >> there is no question that the violence in syria continues to be a problem, and as we have said all along, the more that civil war continues 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. whether it is iraq, syria, lebanon, the only resolutions to these conflicts is through a political process. we are working very closely with our partners and directly with those who support reconciliation 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 government and state of policy 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, would 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 iraq when tens of thousands, 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 made by groups within iraq to pursue political reconciliation, and in the case of iraq, the sunni awakening for example, regardless of religious affiliation, there are those who will reject extremism. that 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. john christopher and then margaret. >> the first press briefing of the new year. have you discussed any insight

into the president's new year's resolution, especially in dealing with coverage? >> i have not had that 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 acknowledged at the time it was a break from past practice, at least the immediate past. and it was a positive sign. we are hopeful that might foreshadow more opportunities for cooperation and areas where there is agreement about how to

invest in our economy. i think gene mention on one of the shows yesterday about how to reduce the corporate tax rate, and close a lot of loopholes, and as 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. comprehensive immigration reform is another right opportunity for bipartisan corporation, given 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 commitment by this president to not take congressional

intransigence as the end of the sword. and by moving as he can administratively and through his executive authority to advance an agenda that helps 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. peace talks are underway. can you give us a sense of the president being more engaged in this? on iraq, 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. the president's special envoy is in ethiopia and in support of talks between the two parties. he is pressing them to agree to a cease-fire. as secretary kerry said on 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 to be meaningful and productive, senior sbl m 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 political 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 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 government to sign the bilateral security agreement. the time is coming, we estimate, with our nato allies, preparations for the post 2014 mission. and absent the bsa, that cannot include a troop presence. iran, work is still being done

by technical teams on the interim agreement. we expect action on that relatively soon. and with regard to iraq, i will repeat what i said before, which is we are committed to providing assistance to the government of iraq in its efforts to work with tribal and regional leaders and expel al qaeda affiliated groups from those areas. because it is in the interest of the iraqi people. we will continue to do that. we are going to continue to speed up the assistance as i mentioned earlier. we believe we can help them achieve that goal and continue to discuss at a political level, as i think is the deputy national security advisor did the other day with an eye rocky --der -- entire iraqi leader

an iraqqui -- iraqui -- quest is that many is playing for us paying for the flight back? the first family will properly fund personal travel. the first lady will travel via government at -- aircraft. your accurate in your description that her decision to remain at the president's suggestion to spend time with friends ahead of her upcoming earth day. -- birthday. if you have kids, telling a spouse you can spend a weekend away from home is a big present. not that we don't all love our kids.

we will seal we can come up with. i have to run to a meeting. >> [inaudible] >> on the disclosures issues? the president will speak about those issues prior to the state of the union. the state of the union addresses on january 28. some to have -- sometime between now and then he will address those issues. great to see you all. thanks a lot. >> [indiscernible] [laughter] [captioning performed by national captioning institute] [captions copyright national cable satellite corp. 2014] >> in a few moments, wisconsin senator ron johnson on his members ofhibit

congress and their staff for federal subsidies to buy health insurance. 9:00 eastern, our series " first ladies: influence and image" continues with an exclusive interview with former first lady rosalynn carter. >> good afternoon. i appreciate you coming this afternoon.

i would like to introduce the two men standing beside me. wow, that is really loud. we have mr. rick esenberg, who is the counsel of record for this lawsuit. he is 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 -- he has been retained to consult on future potential appellate issues. of course, paul is a partner at the bancroft law firm here in d.c. he was 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 ruling that gives members of 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 rules and laws 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 received a press kit. we provided a detailed timeline. a history of the legislative history of the past health care laws. 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 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 really 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.

it is true that members of 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 can keep it. that has been termed the lie of the year by politifact. we are now realizing that millions of americans have lost their health care coverage. including members of congress and their staff. millions have 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 i think that is the issue because those individuals urrently are getting tax advantage healthcare benefits through their employer. hen they lose their coverage they will have to obtain it through an exchange, exactly of congress and

staff have to do. here is the difference and the special treatment. only members of congress and their staff when they lose their sponsored care will have the ability to have their a tax advantage contribution to the healthcare pl plan. treatment. special that is completely unfair and unjustice. that is what i'm trying to ov this particular lawsuit. now, if you take a careful look at the life history you will notice the senate, when they law was before them, had they opportunities to actually allow employer contributions. first nator harry reid filed the law there was all kinds of committee activity and that allowance for a in ribution was included that committee work but he chose not to include it in his law.