so, when we've got the mom of two of our troops who is working is having toe but wear a coat inside the house, we have a problem. and it's one that can be fixed. katherine's not alope. devlin smith, watching from california, wrote me about her hunt for a new job. since she was laid off 13 months ago, she sent out hundreds of resumes, she's volunteered, seasonal work. she doesn't want to be sitting around the house. she's taking online courses to learn new skills. without unemployment insurance, she won't be able to pay for her car or self-phone, which makes the job hunt that much harder.

and she wrote to me and said, i've wanted nothing more than to find a new full-time job and i dedicated every day to that mission. i'm asking you to advocate for me and the millions like me who need our extended unemployment benefits to make ends meet. i just want everybody to understand, this is not an abstraction, she's are not statistics. these are your neighbors, friends, family members. it could at some point be any of us. that's why we set up a system of unemployment insurance. the notion was everybody is making a contribution because you don't know when the business cycle or an economic crisis might make any of us vulnerable. and this insurance helps keep food on the table while dad is sending out resumes. it helps mom pay the rent while she's learning new skills to

earn that new job. that provides that extra set of security so that losing your job doesn't mean you have to lose your house. where everybody you worked so hard to build for years. we make this promise to our fellow americans who are working hard to get back on their feet because when times get tough, we are not a people who say you're on your own. we are people who believe that we are all in it together. we know there but the grace of god go i. [applause] so that's the values case for this. that's the moral case for this. but, there's an economic case for it as well. independent economists have shown extending emergency unemployment insurance actually helps the economy. actually creates new jobs. when folks like katherine have a

little more to spend, to your honor turn -- to turn up the heat in her house or buy a few extra groceries, that means more spending at businesses in their local community, which in turn may inspire that business to hire one more person. maybe kathy. that's why in the past both parties have repeatedly put partisanship and ideology aside to offer some security for job seekers with no strings attached. it's been nothing regardless whether democrats or republicans were in the white house. it's been done regardless of whether democrats or republicans controlled congress. and by the way, it's done -- it's been done multiple times when the unemployment rate was significantly lower than it is today. what's important to keep in mind also is that the recovery in a big country like the united states is going to be somewhat uneven. so there are some states that

have a 2.5 unemployment rate, and there are someplaces that ay still have a 7, 8, 9% unemployment rate. people living in those respective states may be working equally hard to find a job, but it's going to be harder in someplaces than others. now, two weeks ago congress went home for the holidays and let this lifeline expire for 1.3 million americans. if this doesn't get fixed it will hurt about 14 million americans over the course of this year. five million workers, along with nine million of their family members, their spouses, their kids. now, i have heard the argument that says extending unemployment insurance will somehow hurt the unemployed because it zaps their motivation to get a new job. i really want to -- i want to go

t this for a second. [applause] that really sells the american people short. i mean a lot -- meet a lot of people as president of the united states and as candidate for president of the united states and as a u.s. senator and state senator. i meet a lot of people. and i can't name a time or met an american who would rather have an unemployment check than the pride of having a job. [applause] the long-term unemployed are not lazy. they are not lacking in

motivation. they are coping with the aftermath of the worst economic crisis in generations. in some cases they may have a skills mismatch. they may have been doing a certain job for 20 years, suddenly they lose that job, they may be an older worker, may have to get retrained. it's hard. sometimes employers will discriminate if you have been out of work for a while. they decide, well, we are not sure we want to hire you. we would rather hire somebody ho is still working right now. it's hard out there. there are a lot of friends, a lot of our neighbors who have lost their jobs and they are working their tails off every single day trage too find -- trying to find a new job. as the job market keeps getting better, more and more of these folks will find work.

but in the meantime, the insurance keeps them from falling off a cliff. it makes sure they can pay their car note to go to that interview. it makes sure they can pay their cell phone bills so that if somebody calls back for an interview they can answer it. and katherine explained this. katherine in the letter she wrote to me said, that the folks real -- really think that cutting this benefit will make someone hire me? that's not how employers are thinking. so letting unemployment insurance expire for millions of americans is wrong. congress should make things right. i'm very appreciative they are on their way to doing just that thanks to the bipartisan work of two senators. a democrat from rhode island, senator reid, and conservative

republican from nevada, senator heller. despite their political differences they worked together on a plan fix. unemployment insurance for at least three months temporarily while we figure out a longer term solution. this morning a bipartisan majority of senators agreed to allow this commonsense provision to at least move forward in the process. the senate's a complicated place so just because they agreed on this vote, all they have agreed to so far is we are going to be able to have a vote on it. they haven't actually passed it. so we've got to get this across the finish line without obstruction or delay, and we need the house of representatives to be able to vote for it as well. [applause] hat's the bottom line. voting for unemployment insurance helps people and creates jobs. and voting against it does not.

congress should pass this bipartisan plan right away and i will sign it right away. and more than one million americans throughout the country will feel a little hope right away. and hope is contagious. [applause] when katherine has a bit more confidence about her situation, when she finds a job, she's going to be able to help somebody down the line, maybe ho is also down on their luck. when congress passes a bipartisan effort starting here, right at the beginning of the new year, who knows, we might actually get some things done this year. after all the hard work and sacrifice of the past five years to recover and rebuild from the crisis, i think the american people are really looking forward to 2014 as just a little

bit of stability. let's just do the commonsense . ing, let's do what's right we are going to have to see action on the part of congress. and i'll be willing to work with them every step of the way. action to help our businesses create more of the good jobs that a growing middle class requires. action to restore economic stability, action to open more doors of opportunity for everybody who is willing to work hard and walkthrough those doors. -- walk through those doors. when i was listening to katherine i was just so struck and r strength and dignity i think people when they bump into some tough times like katherine, they are not looking for pity, they just want a shot. and they just want to feel as if --

[applause] they just want to feel as if, you know what, as a part of this contry, as a part of their communities -- country, as a part of their communities, when misfortune shows, all the things that they have done in the past, all the hard work they have done raising children and paying taxes and working hard, that counts for something. that folks aren't suddenly just going to dismiss their concerns, but they are going to rally behind them. that's not too much to ask. that's who we are as americans. that's what built this country. [applause] that's what i want the most. thank you very much, everybody. let's get to work. let's get this done. i appreciate it. [applause]

[captioning performed by national captioning institute] [captions copyright national able satellite corp. 2014] >> president obama at the white house commenting on the senate's vote agreeing to move forward with legislation extending unemployment insurance benefits by three months. a final vote on that possible later this week. here on c-span we want to hear what you think on uninsurance benefits. for democrats that's 202-585-3885. republicans, 202-585-3886. and independents enothers, 202-585-3887. we will also read some faith-based comments, faith-based -- facebook.com/c-span. igh in on twitter,

#c-spanchat. russell berman is covering the debate in the senate for "the hill." politics first. how did the senate manage to get the 60 votes needed to move forward with the bill? >> this is a little bit of a surprise. the democrats coming into this vote were worried they would be a vote or two short of the 60-vote threshold, ultimately six republicans, including senator rob portman of ohio, senator susan collins of maine, and four others did vote along with all the democrats who are voting to advance this. it still has a long way to go. at least two more, probably senate votes. some of the republicans who voted for this procedural vote say that they would need offsetting spending cuts to pay for the extension, which costs up to three months about $6 o billion before they would vote assage or final

cloture would require 60 votes as well. >> in terms of this bipartisan bill, the president called this a bipartisan bill, pointing out dean heller's support of it, where will his allegiances fall when the vote comes later this week likely? >> where will the president's? >> where will senator heller's allegiances fall? >> he's in support. this bill as of right now is unpaid for. so he was the first republican to get onboard with senator jack reed of rhode island on a three-month extension. the unemployment rate in nevada is still very high. and that's probably one reason for his support for this. but it's likely going to -- to get through both the senate and the house, speaker boehner has already said that it needs to be paid for. right now over the next few days they are probably going to be entering into negotiations over what kind of cuts to make elsewhere that would pay for this bill and potentially the democrats want to extend it for

a full year, this three-month extension was meant to buy time for a longer solution that might include some reforms to the program. so we'll see if it stays in that three-month window or if they try to broaden it out to a one-year extension. >> is it possible this bill could be attached to something bigger, an omnibus spending bill, the farm bill? >> it's possible. in the past unemployment insurance extensions have been attached to other bills. we are working to finish up, as you mentioned, the farm bill, and there's been some talk on the democratic side of the aisle, at least in the house, of using the savings from the farm bill, with cuts to food stamp and farm subsidies, to pay for the unemployment benefits, because that money watches up pretty well. $25 billion to spend emergency unemployment insurance for the full year. so that is a possibility. it's also -- the other bill that you mentioned that is definitely a vehicle that is going to move

forward, probably in the next few weeks, is that omnibus spending bill. it could be attached to one or the other. if it's attached to the farm bill it would likely sort of be combined and some of the money from the farm bill would be used for it. >> lastly in the article you write for thehill.com. the democrats hoping to change the conversation in 2014 away from discussion on the health care reform law. how, in addition to this bill, might they try to do that? >> they are going to focus on the topic of the moment, which is income and equality. the president of course has been talking about this in various forms since his re-election. even before then. it's gotten a lot of attention the mayor ction of of new york sitty. other liberal democrats have been focusing on this. so the push to extend unemployment insurance and also to raise the minimum wage is all part of that. you can expect to see the

president and congressional democrats talking as he has in the state of the union address later this month about other issues. most notably a push to increase the minimum wage, which is really an uphill battle with republicans controlling the house. republicans have long been opposed, most anyway, to raising the minimum wage. saying it would hurt job creation, especially among small businesses. it's going to be a tough battle for democrats. and now we are into the election year, everything has political and electoral connotation. that's how it's going to be framed. >> read more of russell berman's reporting at thehill.com and on twitter. thanks for the update. get to your comments and your calls. chris is in spruce pine, alabama, who is on our democrats' line. what do you think about the senate moving forward on these unemployment insurance benefits? >> i think it's a great consideration. it's one of the un-dirnl' one of

the ununemployed in alabama. when i heard the benefits would be cut again, i'm 61 years old. the job market here in for instance pine, alabama, is absolutely -- i mean in alabama altogether, and northwest alabama, and nuclear weapons my small town within even a 20, 25 mile radius there are no jobs in my field. but my unemployment was not actually due to -- the job market, i'm not going to say it actually was not, i was in the job for 13 years at a health care facility. that health care facility went bankrupt. so that is the very reason i'm unemployed. but at my age there are very few, very few jobs in my area that absolutely i'm qualified for. i'm one of the unemployed. so this is an immediate, immediate -- thank you, jesus. thank you, god, that my husband

has a good job at this time. but at our age and economy, it is crucial, crucial for our government to come forward with this immediately. don't wait, i'm sorry it happened during the holidays, do not wait on this vote. this is crucial. >> chris from alabama. comments on facebook, facebook.com/c-span. one from patreesha, let's see if the do-nothing else can stop blaming poor and hurting and do something for the american people. crystal says, it better not get extended again. these people need to get out and start looking for jobs. bill says i think funding unemployment benefits should come out of the congressmen's paychecks. craig is a republican. he's in holiday, florida. what do you think? caller: same thing happened to me. my job was outsourced to the

philippines in 2011. host: what kind of job? caller: i worked for a telecommunications company. the government is required to pay off some of my college re-education. i have been going to college for three semesters now. now because of the shut off, i have one class to graduate i can't graduate from college now. the government's been paying my tuition. big waste of time for me. i believe they should extend it. host: next up, the independent line. mark. hello. caller: how you doing, good morning. host: doing fine, thank you. caller: i only have two concerns. i believe these people need their benefits extended. but i also believe that when the democrats say that we want to pass with no strings attached, that's a warning. i think there's enough waste in the federal government where they can offset the cost of the extension. cut ust like to see them

the -- host: a number, on the republican side, have been calling for what they have termed pay-for. here's a tweet from anna on twitter, #c-spanchat. g.o.p. wants pay fors. generate some revenue. extend unemployment insurance now. quit calling americans lazy. senator boxer was an economics major, she still believes giving unemployment checks boost the economy. host: that vote today just to move forward with the legislation not final passage. that is expected sometime later this week. democrats line, tom in connecticut. hi. caller: good afternoon. i hope they extend it and make it long term. i'm a construction worker. i'm 61 years old. i only worked four months last year. i can't see why we -- we could

spend more money on infrastructure in this country, and i'm sick and tired of voting schools, roads, and sewer systems in afghanistan and iraq. put a freeze on foreign aid for one year. take that money and put it to work for the american people in this country. give us -- we want to work. there's so many people that want to work in this country, but the jobs are not there. so he'll put construction people to work. he'll generate so many hundreds of thousands of jobs. i wish the people would understand and get that through their head. i want to work. host: how long have you been out of work? caller: three months now. host: what did do you before then? caller: heavy equipment operator. i have been working for 40 years in the equipment trade. host: in terms of the economy there in connecticut, what's it like? caller: there's work, but not that much work in construction. we need more infrastructure. highway funding. put money in the highway

funding, get the work out there, and get the construction season started when it starts in the spring. put people to work. that's what i want to see happen. host: tennessee. dina, tennessee. larry. caller: yeah. the guy just before me here, he pretty much said exactly what hi on my mind. -- what i had on my mind. i'm in my mid 60's and been out of work seven months, and this benefit program has helped me along really well. now that it's out, i've got to look at doing something other than unemployment. but we need some unemployment now, money, to get by until i can find something. it's just not out there. my vote is to hurry up, get the congress to vote for than let's get things moving right along and get this voted back in for the people that need it. host: what do you think of extending it for a year. you may have heard a conversation with russell berman mentioning that, that some

democratic leaders would like to extend it for a year. in your own case do you think within three months you would be in pretty good shape to find something? caller: yes, sir. i do. i've got a few things working. nothing in concrete right now. it looks good. maybe two, three months down the road. but just got to get there. host: thanks for your call. comments from speaker boehner following the passage in the senate of moving forward with the senate bill. the vote was 60-37. here's part of what speaker bane her to say. host: the reaction from the democratic leader in the house, nancy pelosi, part of her omments saying --

host: back to calls. valaparaiso, indiana. democrats line. go ahead. caller: i'm 50. i have been out of work for over six months. i have worked for over 35 years. host: what kind of work did you do? caller: i'm a health care worker. a biller. and i go on interviews all the time and i can't get called back. i don't know if it's because i have too much experience and they want entry-level people so they can pay them $5 less an hour. don't know. i really don't think that i can wait until the end of the week for them to vote. i want them to get it done right away. we are looking every single day. believe me i would rather be working than sitting at home trying to find a job, going on interviews. i don't even have gas money this week to go anywhere. host: you are in the health care field, in the field that by a lot of indicators is a field that's growing, yet you say you're having trouble finding

work. caller: yeah. and i go on interviews. i just don't get called back. is there an incentive for the states to get maybe a tax credit for going to that state's unemployment people that are getting checks every week and hiring them? just like they do if you're a veteran, you mark that down when you're hiring in. host: you're sharing the story. let's hear from fall river, massachusetts. joey, independent line. caller: yes. i just had to say that it's not easy looking for a jobs. every job we go on to, you go to an interview, people never call you back. it's not easy to find a job out there. what they need to do is hurry up and bring it to the congress and sign it off quickly. host: what kind of work are you looking for? caller: whatever is available. doesn't matter what it is. whatever's available. host: couple more of your calls coming up.

one of those na tendance at the white house today in the east room is senator sander levin, ranking member on the house ways and means committee. here's his tweet after the passage in the senate. host: another view from republican congressman tim huelskamp from kansas. kathleen is in lancaster, california, on our democrats' line. go ahead. caller: hi. same thing in lancaster, california, it's not a big city. it's a real small city near l.a. same thing, going out looking for work. i do go look for work and everybody, and some of the companies, you're too old, you're 57. you got too much experience. they don't want to hire people that have a lot of experience. they want to hire younger people, they said, to move

people into what they want. host: what's your field? caller: i can do cash shearing, i can do care giving. i could do anything. host: here's zelda, republican line in garden city, michigan. we just lost her. let's go to rockford, illinois, independent line. hello. caller: i just wanted to really thank president obama for being so compassionate and so sincere in the way he's talking to people. it's from the heart. the republicans attempted to overturn obamacare 40 times, and ach time they voted like that, their salaries were -- 40 times the vote, and all that waste of time comes to almost $90 million in salaries. because it costs almost $2

million every time they vote. it was insane. and yet they don't want to see a blue collar working class. have been retired t. and here i am 10 years later at age -- maybe longer than that. i can't do math. so i'm 58 and we just start add small business, and it is frightening. it is frightening. i'm 100% disabled and i'm helping my wife with the small business and it is frightening. and it's just a small venture. people think that workers like myself, retired from federal government, oh, fine. they have it great. they don't realize how high our health care costs are. 20 years in the postal service, i get a retirement of less than $26,000 a year. host: one more call. from conyers, georgia. go ahead.

caller: yes, i'm a retiree and i'm sitting here watching this. i cannot believe that there were so many of those senators who did not vote for this. when the president was trying to get enough money to get things leveled off, he asked for taxes from the top 10%, well, a lot of those people should not be in that 10%. and they did not -- that's why they never voted for it. i'm a retiree, and you know what even my social security, half of my social security for the year, is taxed so that my benefits, my retirement benefits, will not put me high enough to live. host: you're a retiree. what's the employment situation in and around conyers? what's the unemployment situation? caller: i'm not sure because i just moved to georgia. i came out of michigan. host: thank you for calling. thanks for all your comments. a couple of final tweets here.

c-spanchat what we are using on twitter. host: the #c-spanchat. we'll take you live to the national press club to hear from the army chief of staff. earlier in the senate, by a vote of 60-37. senators agreeing to move forward with the unemployment insurance legislation. which would extend benefits for another three months. that lapsed on december 28. right after the vote, after that vote, we heard from senate democratic leaders. >> good morning. the united states senate just took a very important step

forward in assisting 1.3 million americans who lost their extended unemployment benefits on december 28, and also the millions more that will lose it throughout the course of this year. it there's still a great deal of work to be done, but we have literally changed this debate. just a few weeks ago there were colleagues who were talking about unemployment insurance as a disservice to the american worker. today we are talking about the vital nature of this program and the need to extend it and now we are also talking about should it be paid for in the long term? are there other changes that could be made? we made several changes in 2012. so we are moving forward. we have to collaborate. we have to be constructive.

but today i think we have given a bit of hope to millions of americans who are struggling in a difficult economy to find jobs, who are struggling to provide sustenance to their families, to pay their heat bill, put some gas in the car, and to keep looking for work. we also understand that this is just providing sort of the immediate assistance people need. the longer term is to create the jobs. to build the economy where this -- these programs are not as necessary as they are today. i certainly -- this was a work of great effort that was collaborative and i'm pleased to colleagues who paid such a critical role, senator schumer, senator a even. without them this would not have

happened. let me call on senator shaheen from new hampshire. >> thank you, senator reid, and thank you for your leader -- reed, and thank you for your leadership on this. you and senator heller made this a bipartisan vote. it was very good news to see 60 votes to move forward. it's good not just for the 1.3 million families who will benefit, but it's also going to be good for the economy of the united states. the congressional budget office and numerous economists, including mark zandi, have indicated this is one of the best things we have can do to help keep the money in the economy, keep it stimulated. it's a good way to spend public dollars to encourage private sector response. this is good for families, but it's also going to be good for our economy as we know that people who get unemployment insurance are going to spend those dollars. they are not going to put them in the bank. as senator reed said, how do we create jobs? this is one of the challenges we

have. making sure that people can still go out and look for work, those dollars can be used to buy gasoline, pay for groceries, pay people's rent is important because it keeps a lot of other people working in the economy. it's very good news. serious negotiation vs. to start as we think -- noshes have to start as we think about how we get this bill passed. >> before i introduce senator brown, i have to personally thank senator dean heller of nevada. he stood up, responding to his constituents and to what he was seeing in his home state, but across the country, and he provided great leadership. he did it with thoughtful persistent advocacy, and we are here today because in large part of his efforts and all of my colleagues on my democratic colleagues, but also my republican colleagues who stepped forward and said let's

put it the rhetoric aside for a moment and try to help people. then do it in a constructive, cooperative way. with that let me recognize sherrod brown. >> it's 8 degrees below zero in cleveland today. it seems like it's almost that cold here and i think this vote today, this bipartisan vote, particularly thanks to senator reed and senator heller, on this bipartisan vote will help those people who have lost jobs. will heat their homes, help them go to the grocery store and buy food. will help them fix their car at the local -- with the local car mechanic so they can drive and look for work. this is all about social insurance. it's unemployment insurance. people pay into this when they are working and when they have lost their jobs. it's important they get those benefits. and no one gets these benefits without looking for jobs day after day after day. that's why this is so important. it's also important that we got

a strong bipartisan vote out of the senate. i think that means good news for a minimum wage increase down the road. sooner rather than later. the last time we did minimum wage was 2007. strong bipartisan vote in both houses. signed by president bush. signed by the president of the united states. we hope to represent will i -- represently kate that effort in 2014. it's also good news on manufacturing job growth issues we are working on bipartisanly. just came from a meeting with the manufacturing caucus, a group of members of the senate from both parties who care about job creation and care about manufacturing. last point i'd like to briefly make is senator shaheen just mentioned about how this is good for the economy. 100 years ago this week henry ford announced that he was going to pay his workers $5 a day. that was the person sweeping the floor and building the model t. what henry ford understood is what 60 members of the senate understood today and that is

when you put money in people's pockets, they spend it and it grows the economy. maybe to buy a model t in his day, 100 years ago, but today in means they spend that money locally in grocery stores and car mechanic at the hardware store, buying clothes for their kids. keeping them going, keeping them alive. when it means for the 52,000 people in ohio that saw their unemployment expire at the end of last year and when neens to our economy as a -- means to our economy as a whole. >> on december 28, 18,000 families in oregon got a lum of coal in their -- lump of coal in their stockings when we failed to re-authorize the emergency unemployment program. of course this coming year we are going to see another 58,000 oregon families affected. then we have the broader economy in oregon, that's the thought this action would eliminate about 4,000 jobs. i can tell you that the citizens in oregon want to see us create

jobs not destroy jobs. and so in this case we have a win-win for the families themselves, a stronger foundation, or a stronger bridge to the next job in areas of high unemployment and something that is helping the broader economy at the same time. this was a bipartisan program developed under president bush. today, this morning, we had a bipartisan vote to debate the bill. and now we have to make sure we have a bipartisan support to actually re-authorize this program and take those lumps of coal out of the stockings. this weekend i was doing town halls in oregon, and four were in rural areas. there's higher unemployment in rural areas across america. the average unemployment in oregon is now about 7.3%. but in three counties it's almost 12%. so the time it takes to get

another job is much longer. that's true in high unemployment states and that's true across the country. so huge logic and huge impact on families. but let's understand there's a fundamental viewpoint here. when families are down, are they going to get a helping hand in the bridge to the next job? are they going to get kicked while they are down? i think the helping hand, bipartisan helping hand is what we have to develop and get re-authorized with due speed. thank you. >> thank you. i want to thank my colleagues, senator reed and senator heller for their leadership, and my colleague, senator shaheen brown and merkley, for working so hard on this issue. today brought us a glimmer of hope. it's good news in two ways. the first is it doesn't close the door on actually getting this bill passed. it allows us to sit down and

negotiate. i'll talk more about that in a sec. the second is it shows that the big plates, tech tonic plates in our politics are moving. the issues that dominated the first five years of the president's term, the deficit and obamacare, are becoming less important than helping the average american people get by as job growth isn't as robust as we'd like it, and as middle class incomes this decade have declined for the first time in american history. our republican colleagues realize that. that's why they didn't shut the door on things because they saw as this chart shows the de-- the kind of unemployment we face, much higher now. much higher. and had they -- if our colleagues -- second point. we hope that this is a good faith negotiation. the offer that senator mcconnell made to the senate is obviously

a nonstarter. i hope, we hope, some of us fear, that our republican colleagues, while they know the power of this issue, do not want some it and will put obstacles in the way that will prevent the bill from passing. clearly the amendment posed by senator mcconnell was not going to -- was not going to pass. we don't want a mexican standoff, or we put in our pay-for and they put in their pay-for. coy think of one that makes more sense and morel vant than senator mcconnell's. take away the tax break for companies that ship jobs overseas. that would reduce unemployment and eventually lower the cost of unemployment insurance. i think we would have every democrat vote for that. but i suppose that would be a nonstarter for republican colleagues in the senate and house. the fundamental question is, are they going through a charade to show they really, really want a bill but they just can't come to

an agreement and there are two different versions? or can we have serious negotiations and get something done? and we hope it's the latter. we hope it's the latter. if our republican colleagues continue to play games with this, they'll show how far out of the mainstream they are. as was mentioned by senator merkley, the original framework here was passed by george bush, a conservative republican president, when unemployment was 5.6%. it's now 7%. are republicans so far out of the mainstream that they reject even that? even unemployment benefits for people who have worked 10, 20, 30 years at one job, lost their job, and then they are spending every day going online or knocking on doors and trying to find a job and they can't? certainly we didn't hear the theory of the hard right or what

rand paul said that unemployment benefits are a disservice to our workers. this idea people don't want to work. is fundamentally misleading the american character. americans do want to work. and there's satisfaction in job well-done for c.e.o.'s and people who make sure the floors are really spotlessly clean late at night in the hospital. so we hope that the vote today indicates thature republican colleagues will negotiate in good faith. we are open to such negotiations. we believe it would be, i believe, i think most of my colleagues believe it would be better to pass unpaid for, if we can't come to an agreement or even if we could because it stimulates the economy. we want to get this bill passed. it's too important, too important for the average merican family not to. questions? >> the noshe that these negotiations are going to be

offsetting -- >> i would prefer to pass this 90-day extension so that we could assure millions of americans they are going to get their benefits without disruption. my preference, frankly, and i think senator schumer said the same thing, because we want to also grow jobs as well as take care of unemployed that typically this is emergency spending which is not offset. last year, the beginning of 2013, we passed with overwhelming republican support a one-year extension of unemployment benefits that were not paid for. this notion of selectively saying the key issues must be paid for, must be paid for, that's not the case. most times we have paid for these benefits. i think we are going through these negotiations saying, you know, our reference is clearly we want to get this thing done

quickly. this 90-day extension. for a year-long extension, if you have thoughtful ways to deal with it, and senator schumer suggested one, there are many others, we understand. we have to have a -- another bipartisan effort to get this measure finally passed. but from strictly the economic sense, strictly from history, the last number of times we have done this, in fact most recently in 2013, january, 2013, these benefits weren't paid for. best choice, pass it, no strings attached, get it done, get it done quickly. second best choice, finding a reasonable pay-for that can work on both sides of the aisle. i would caution people that's a lot easier said than done.

again as i said i'm worried that e may be being somewhat walked into cul de sac by our colleagues who don't have an intention of doing that. that's a possibility. worst choice, you just have competing pay-fors and we don't get this done. it hurts our economy and workers. it >> can you give us the an example of what's a reasonable pay-for? >> senator schumer suggested some of these tax provisions deprive lly not only the government of revenue, but also help deploy jobs overseas when we need jobs here. but there are a whole list of tax loopholes, and other things we could consider. i want to foreclose discussions. i think at this point,

particularly, having secured a very positive bipartisan vote, getting us on to the measure, that we want to go forward in good faith and good spirit. and not include, exclude, etc., but just simply say we are willing to listen. as senator schumer cautioned, we have to have something that makes sense for the economy, makes sense for the people. and something that we can generally support. i hope my republican colleagues approach it the same way. anyone else? >> surprised by the vote today? >> it was in the balance until the very last moment. i was hopeful, but i guess being irish i'm always expecting the worst. yeah, i was surprised. that might be more a cultural

than political. >> i think we are all -- not being irish, i think we all are a bit surprised. i think pope francis exorted his parish priests to go out and smell like the flock. i think that on a vote like this i think members of the senate are increasingly hearing from their constituents. a number of our colleagues did events during the holidays in the last two weeks, and if they were out in public, they were hearing from people whose unemployment benefits expired. there's 50,000 in my state, a large state, not the largest. it was thousands everywhere in this country. i think that not only is that good news for the unemployment insurance vote, i think that's good news for engage, good news for manufacturing, for really focusing on jobs. i think more and more of my colleagues are hearing that.

>> thank you. [captioning performed by national captioning institute] [captions copyright national able satellite corp. 2014] >> senate democratic leadership, after the vote, 6 o-37 vote to advance that unemployment benefits bill in the senate, possible a final passage vote will happen later this week. shortly after that vote, provepl spoke to -- president obama spoke to a number of people in the east room of the white house about extending those benefits. we also spoke to a capitol hill eporter about what comes next. host: russell berman, politics first. how did the senate madge to get the 60 votes needed to move forward with the bill? >> this is a little bit of a surprise. the democrats coming into this

vote were worried they would be a vote or two short of the 60-vote threshold. ultimately six republicans, including senator rob portman of ohio, senator susan collins of maine, and four others did vote along with all the democrats who were voting to advance this. but it still has a long way to go. at least two more probably senate votes. some of the republicans who voted for this procedural vote said that they would need offsetting spending cuts to pay for the extension, which cost us three months, about $6 billion, before they would vote for final passage or potentially final cloture vote which would require 60 votes as well. >> in terms of this bipartisan bill, the president called this a bipartisan bill, pointing out dean heller's support of it, where will his allegiances fall when the vote comes later this week likely? >> where will the president's? >> where will senator heller's

allegiances fall? >> yes. he's in support. this bill as of right now is unpaid for. he was the first republican to get onboard with senator jack reid -- jack reed of rhode island on an extension. the unemployment rate in nevada is still very high and probably one reason for his support. to get through both the senate and the house, speaker boehner has already said that it needs to be paid for. right now over the next few days they are probably going to be entering into negotiations over what kind of cuts that would pay for this bill. and potentially the democrats want to extend it for a full year, this three-month extension was meant to buy time that might include some reforms to the program. so we'll see if it stays in that three-month window or if they try to broaden it out to a one-year extension. >> is it possible this bill could be attached to something

bigger? an omnibus spending bill, the farm bill? >> it's possible. in the past unemployment insurance extensions have been attached to other bills. we are working to finish up, as you mentioned, the farm bill, and there's been some talk on the democratic side of the aisle, at least in the house, of using the savings from the farm bill with cuts to food stamp and farm subsidies, to pay for the unemployment benefits because that money watches up pretty well. it would cost about $26 billion to extend emergency unemployment insurance for the full year. that is a possibility. it's also the other bill that you mentioned that is definitely a vehicle that's going to move forward, probably in the next few weeks, is that omnibus spending bill. it could be atotched to one or the other. if it's attached to the farm bill it would likely be combined some of the money from the farm bill would be used. >> the arctic many you write for

thehill.com, the democrats hoping to change the conversation in 2014 away from the discussion on the health care reform law. how, in addition to this bill, might they try to do that? >> they are going to if he cows on the topic -- focus on the topic of the moment, income inequality. the president has been talking about this in various forms since his election and even before that. it's gotten a lot of attention from the mayor of new york city, liberal democrats have been focusing on this. the push to extend unemployment insurance and also to raise the minimum wage is all part of that. you can expect to see the president and congressional democrats talking as he has in the state of the union address later this month about other issues, most notably a push to increase the minimum wage, which is really an uphill battle with republicans controlling the house. republicans have long been opposed, most of them, to

raising the minimum wage saying it would hurt job creation, especially among small businesses. it's going to be a tough battle for democrats. no we are into the election year, everything has little and electoral connotations. that's how it's going to be framed. >> read more of russell berman's reporting at thehill.com and on twitter. thanks for the update. >> thank you. >> coming up in about five minutes here on c-span, we'll take you live to the national press club, the army chief of staff will be talking about the future of the army. before taking his current position, general odierno was commanding general for the u.s. in iraq. our coverage beginning at 1:00 p.m. eastern. at 2:30 eastern we'll bring you live coverage as a senate judiciary subcommittee looks into the plight of syrian refugees. according to the u.n. high commissioner on refugees, it's the worst refugee crisis since

the rawandan genocide in 1994. that hearing live at 2:30 eastern. >> can any woman be adequately prepared for the duties of first lady? >> yes. you're the wife of a governor or if you're the wife of the vice president. >> or if you're mother-in-law's first lady and you watched her for four years. >> i think you can. i think it's a golden opportunity to do something. i think lady bird was the one who said, opportunity to do something good. if by chance helps your husband, the better. the world health organization estimates that more than 1.3 million people worldwide are diagnosed with breast cancer each year.

-- americans can empower more women to detect breast cancer early which today is the closest thing we have to a cure. >>s you know chicago is truly a -- of neighborhoods s.e.p. seperated by parks and boulevard. walking a few blocks can put you in entirely different world of experiences. cut through a park english to spanish, black to white, puerto rican to polish. cross a few streets you go from historic homes and manicured lawns to abandoned buildings and dark street corners. so the opportunities available to a child growing up in one neighborhood in this city might be vastly different than a child growing up just five blocks away. and that difference can shape their lives and their live

prospects from the moment they are born. a moon, our original series, first ladies, influence and image returns with the five most recent first ladies from nancy reagan through michelle obama, monday night live eastern on crn span 3, also on c-span radio and c-span.org. >> if i identified the single most important challenge to over come it would be that. e notion truth of the matter is the reason why we are here today is because of the inclination which -- jihadist inclination which it's not ahistorical but anti-historical because it denies entries tradition. ndreds of years of diversity to be muslim you have to follow its edict.

and a very limited short period of time. and i think our journey as american muslims have to be out refusing to be told by clerics who speak for us that islam and its ideals is a seventh century reality. islam americans who need in the 21st century. >> part of book tv this week end on c-span2. online for this month's tv book club, we'll discuss the liberty amendments. read the book and join the conversation. go to book tv.org and clig on book club to enter the chatroom. >> c-span, we're live at the national press club in washington. we'll hear from ray odierno.

before commanding the chief of staff, he commanded u.s. joint forces command and was u.s. general for the campaign in iraq. general odierno, he is expected to answer questions about iraq and afghanistan and defense budget cuts. live coverage here on c-span. >> good afternoon and welcome to the national press club. my name is angela keene, i'm a reporter for bloomberg news and the 106th president of the national press club. we are the world's leading professional organization for journalists, committed to our profession's future through our programming with events such as this while fostering a free press worldwide. for more information about the national press club please visit our website to www.press.org. on behalf of our members worldwide, i'd like to welcome our speaker today and those of you in the audience.

our head table includes guests of our speaker as well as working journalist who is are club members. and if you hear applause in our audience, i'd note that members of the general public are also attending so it's not necessarily evidence of a lack of journalistic on jecktift. i'd -- object tift. i'd like to welcome c-span and our public audiences. you can follow the action on twitter using the #npclunch. now it's time to introduce our head table guests. i'd ask you to stand briefly as your name is announced. jackson, ight, hesh washington correspondent. gene ty, reporter with the hex gone newsletter. jim michaels, military writer for "usa today." fiola, senior writer for the united states institute of peace. patrick host, a reporter with "defense daily." catherine, washington correspondent for "the chicago tribune."

colonel andy rolling, special assistant to general odierno. allison fitzgerald, finance and investigative reporter at the center for public integrity and the chairwoman of the national press club speaker's committee. speaking over the speaker for ust a minute, eric meltzer news system specialist at the associated press and the person who organized today's events. colonel j.p. mcgee, executive officer to general odierno. jane judson, editor "inside the army." carlo, muneyose, a freelance national security reporter. and retired air national guard, senior master sergeant and currently a novelist. [applause] when our guest today became the u.s. army chief of staff back in september of 2011, his job

was none too easy. being the guiding force for u.s. soldiers in iraq and afghanistan, he had served nearly 37 years. general odierno fought in desert storm, was a key commander during operation iraqi freedom, then, became the head of the u.s. campaign in iraq. and lept to joint forces command. saudi arabia was captured independent his watch in 2003. now at the helm, he's fighting a war against sexual abuse in the army, which has a higher rate than in other branches of the military. in a message to army personnel he said, "quote the u.s. army is failing in its efforts to combat sexual assault and sexual had a racement." the general has also said sequestration budget cutting is making the fight against sexual abuse harder than ever, from slowing hiring, not providing resolutions for victims. the tightening of washington's pocketbooks and higher than expected costs in afghanistan

have added another dimension of difficulty for general odierno. even though the financial restraints are certainly being felt, his message to the soldiers was clear. he said, i just need you to stay focused on what you do to train, to sustain your equipment, to develop leaders, to take care of our families. do the best you can with the esources we give you, he said. general odierno has stood by president obama's measures to shrink the size of the army by 80,000 troops by 2017 while working to increase its capabilities. a native of new jersey, general odierno is married to his high school sweetheart and they have three children. he holds degrees from west point, the naval war college, the army war college and north carolina state university. general odierno's son retired army captain, tony odierno, had his truck hit in southwest baghdad in 2004. tony is now secretary of the board of directors of the wounded warrior project.

please join me in giving a warm national press club welcome to u.s. army chief of staff, general ray odierno, who will proceed straight to questions and answer, rather than a speech. [applause] >> well, thank you. it's an hob to be here. i thought it would be better during these times of lots of news that we'd go to questions and answers. just an initial opening comment that every day i'm extremely proud that i have the opportunity to represent the men and women of the united states army. 1.1 million in the national guard, u.s. army reserve and the active component. over the last 10 years, there's been over 15,000 awards of valor given out to u.s. army soldiers. nine medal of honors, almost 30 distinguished service costs,

600 silver stars and awards of valor because they did what we asked them to do, go and provide security over this great nation of ours. and it's important that we think of that as we move forward and look to the future and what are our national security issues, what are the things that we have to be concerned with as a nation and what is the army's role in those national security issues. so i hope we'll have a good discussion on that today. e face many challenges, today, whether it be budgets and balancing our budget, reducing the debt and what's the right level of funding for our military. we face problems, social problems which was mentioned, such as sexual assault, sexual harassment. we are working the issues of suicide, the issues of taking care of our soldiers who have been wounded, both with physical and injuries and those that are nonvisible injuries.

it is something we must stay focused on, not just today but for the foreseeable future, bull there are some soldiers who are impacted by this for many, many years. it's our responsibility to make sure that we continue to take care of them. for ope -- it's an honor me to be here and i look forward to the discussions. so with that i'll turn it over for the first question. >> thank you. we do have a lot of ground to cover. let's start broadly since we're in a new year. what would you consider the most significant change we might see in the army in 2014, considering the new strategic environment and the shift from conflict to peace? >> thank you. so there's several things that you'll see in 2014. obviously at the end of 2014, we'll see a change as we come out of afghanistan. we're still waiting on the signing of the agreement. we call the b.s.a.

with afghanistan and after that we'll make a decision on do we leave residual forces in afghanistan or not and that decision will be made in consultations with the joint chiefs and the commander in chief and with the commanders on the ground with that what that says is, just a few years ago the army had over 250,000 soldiers deployed in iraq and afghanistan. the end of 2014 it will be much less number than that. so we'll be in the process of transitioning our force. so there is a couple of things, a rebalancing to the asia pacific which is the defense strategic guidance that we developed at the beginning of 2012. but in addition to that, it is also about us staying engaged regionally. and the army's pushing forth with the concept of regionally aligned forces whether it be in the asia region, africa, middle east, southern command, in

order to provide them the resources necessary for them to do what their job is that is to prevent conflict, build security structures that allow us to be safe and continue to grow our economy as we move forward. allow us to help shape the environment for the future. and then if necessary and as the last resort, be prepared to win if that's what we have to do in order to protect our own security. those are the things and the changes you'll begin to see in 2014, but this is a process in a will occur over the next five, six years. >> looking to iraq, with the seizures of parts of fallujah and ramadi, much of the work you have done has turned back in iraq. how do you feel about our role now in iraq as we watch what's going on over there and trying to figure out what's next? >> so first i would say, obviously it's disappointing to all of us to see the deterioration of the security inside of iraq.

you know, i spent a lot of my life over there. from 2006, end of 2006 to september, 2010, i was there as we continued to reduce the level of violence and the sectarian violence was going on. i believe we left it a place that is capable of going forward. we've seen it because of several political issues internal to iraq, that security situation is now deinvolved into something that is in -- devolved into my mind that is concerning. that is something to be cognizant of, what's going on in syria, what's going on in lebanon, what's going on inside iraq, and this sectarian potential building of sectarian conflict between sunni and shiia and the exploitation of that of nonstate actors such as al qaeda and other organizations who will try to take advantage of this. the biggest threat to our national security is this

ungoverned territory becomes areas where we have terrorist organizations that become dom plant and then try to -- dominant and then try to export their terrorism outside of the middle east and into several other countries, including the united states. so i think it's something we have to watch. i think it's something that we have to stay engaged with politically and it's important for us to make sure that people understand that we're concerned. and i think you'll see us as we move forward. >> can the u.s. keep al qaeda's expansion there at bay without having troops on the ground? >> well, we have to wait and see. we have trained security forces to do that. i think the first alternative is for the forces that are there that we have trained to execute that strategy. you know, one of the things that we did in iraq as well as what we're doing in afghanistan today is train about counterinsurgency and how you fight insurgencies.

and i think what we have to do is continue to work with the iraqi army and others to ensure they understand the basic techniques of counterinsurgency. and so i think we continue to do that. we have a very small element on the ground that works in the embassy, that has some expertise, that can continue to help in these areas. and i think it's important that we do that. it's also important that we continue to ensure that we stay involved diplomatically, which we are. as we work through. so we got to wait and see. i would say this is certainly not the time to put american troops on the ground. i think it's time for them to step up and see what they can to do. and we have to just wait and see and see if it becomes part of our national security interests to put people on the ground. but i think right now our goal is to let them take care of this problem. and we'll continue to work with them to try to solve this problem as we go forward, but it is dangerous. the thought of al qaeda getting on ungoverned territory is something we need to be very

cognizant of. and as we continue to work with them as they conduct counterterrorist operations as well. and thatess what we'll focus on as we move forward. >> -- and that's what we'll focus on as we move forward. >> you said we will not send troops back in iraq. could these seizures have been prevented, did the u.s. blow the end game by removing all the troops when they did? >> well, i would just say -- i can be -- we can all be monday morning quarterbacks on this. the answer is i don't know what the answer is. what i do know is asry said earlier, we provided them an opportunity. when we departed in 2011, the levels of violence in iraq were the lowest they had been in a very, very, very long time. their economy was growing. they're exporting more oil. they had a political system in place that appeared to be working, but since those times, that political process has begun to deteriorate. their economy has actually continued to grow because they

continue export more and more oil because they now have access to their oil fields. they have access to importing that oil. so it's important for us to try to assist them in getting that political process back on track . and part of that is making sure that they understand all the different factions inside of iraq and we don't alienate factions. when we alienate factions you tend then to provide for opportunities of nonstate actors such as alkaling and other terrorist elements to try to exploit that. i think that's the message that we'll continue to work as we move forward, that it's important to bring everybody into the political process, continue to improve economically and we can continue to assist them in understanding how you fight potential insurgencies. >> given the uncertainty in iraq, at this point, how do you answer questions from veterans and soldiers about the myriad

of the time they spent there? there was a piece that was recently published by paul -- i am going to mispronounce his last name -- soldra, who questioned the service there titled "tell me again: why did my friends die in iraq?" what do you tell those people thinking along those lines? >> first off, there's many of us who spent a lot of time in iraq. there's many of us who have personal sacrifices inside of iraq and afghanistan. the bottom line is, we raise our right hand in order to defend the constitution of the united states and when we do that we are prepared to go forward and do what is necessary as we're asked to do by our civilian leadership in order to provide security for this nation. that's what we did in iraq. at a time when it was believed we would go there our military went. we were prepared, we went. i believe we left it in a way

that enabled it to move forward. we eliminated a ruthless dictator, which tend to forget about, an incredibly ruthless individual who i was there long and long and longer, the stories i was told by many different iraqis to include their military were actually grulesom in the life they had to live inside -- gruesome in the life they had to live inside of iraq under saudi arabia. i think you have to look at -- under saddam hussein. i think you have to look at it under those viewpoints, we did our job, we left it in a way that is important. it is incredibly difficult for us to deal with the lives that were lost. no matter what the cause is. it's difficult to deal with lives lost in afghanistan. it's difficult to deal with lives lost in iraq. it's difficult to deal with lives lost in a car accident of a military member or a suicide of a military member, because we're brother and sister in arms and there's a relationship there that's built that you'll

never forget. and so i can never explain properly to anybody when somebody gives their life, but the bottom line what i do know in each and every one of those cases, they raised and volunteered to be in the military because they're proud to be part of the army. they were proud to do this mission. they were proud to be involved in that. and many of them died doing the things they wanted to do. and that's what i remember. i remember their service and their sacrifice and i remember that they dedicated themselves to something much greater than themselves personally. that's what the army's about and that's what i remember. even though i know it's very difficult as we look back at some of the sacrifices that were given. >> what sort of future do you see for iraq and besides the small staff left in the embassy, what sort of role do you see for the u.s. in that future?

>> when i was over there and i used to have people come and visit me, i'd show a map of the middle east, and if you look at iraq, it is right in the center of the middle east. to the west is syria, jordan. to the east is iran. to the south is kuwait, saudi arabia. to the north is turkey. it was -- it's in a strategic location inside of the middle east. it's a very important location. so for us in my mind it's an important country in the middle east. we are still allies and partners with iraq. we have to build on that partnership. we have to make it a partnership that allows us to build security in that region. and i think that's what we have to do. right now it's not -- it's disappointing what's going on. nobody's going to deny that. but again there's still potential. there's economic potential. i believe there's political potential and we have to

continually work hard to help them to reach a state where they can be a good, strong partner of the united states in order for us to sustain the right level of stability. and i would be the first one to admit that today that's looking a bit shaky. but we have to keep working very hard as we move forward. >> looking over to afghanistan as you prepare for troop withdrawal there, what lessons do you have from the iraq drawdown to apply to afghanistan? >> so i think even though we're very cognizant of the fact that afghanistan is very different culturally, very different security-wise, difference between iraq and afghanistan, there are some parallels that are important. one is i think we have -- the military, the afghan army, the afghan police today are showing signs that they are being very successful in handling the

security situation. we turned almost completely over the security operation to them last year in april. they've gone through a very significant fighting season with the taliban and actually performed very, very well. they've proven they can do it. they've proven they have the leadership to do it. the one thing we have left to do, though, we still have to help them in developing their institutions because it's about sustaining this for the long term. so we have to help them in developing the institutions that help them to sustain an army, through personnel policies, through sustainment policies, through developing leaders in their institutions because that's what makes it long lasting. and that's what we have to focus on now and that's why we're anxious and hopefully we can get the b.s.a. signed and talk about the residual force which their responsibility will be is developing the institution, is developing so it can be a long standing success story. and i think that's important that we do that and i'm hoping

that that agreement will be signed so we're able to move forward with that. >> how prepared right now are afghan security forces to operate on their own, and what hurdles stand in the way of them being successful in that? >> i kind of talked to some of that. i think they're very capable. the one thing they're not ready is enablers. what we talk about is some cases aviation support, logistical support, leadership development. those are the things that we need to help them with with the long-term sustainment of their military. what they've proven over the last 10 months is their ability o be aggressive, fight the enemy, to enlist -- continue to enlist soldiers even though they had casualties. we're seeing a broad success in their leadership at the tactical and operational level,

but really what we have to do now, as i said earlier, build the institutions that allow them to sustain this over the long period of time. >> looking to the issue of sexual assault, which you mentioned in your opening remarks, what are the plans to stop future sexual assaults in the army and should trials be taken outside of the military hain of command? > so, you know, sexual assault is a complex problem that has to be dealt with on several different levels. first in my mind, there's a long-term issue of culture. it's a culture that frankly everybody understands it's simply not acceptable and it will not be tolerated. whether it be in the military or anywhere else. i'm concerned about the army.

that will not be tolerated in the army. the best way tone sure that it's not tolerated is the chain of command's involvement in enforcing the standards and policies that we have today. that includes uniform code of military justice. that defines how we discipline the force, how people around the world would tell you the army, the u.s. army and all of the military -- united states military is an incredibly disciplined force. that's one of our great strengths. our ability to train, our ability to execute and execute complex problems. we have to put that energy towards solving this problem. by taking away a tool that i think is incredibly effective to us which is the uniform code of military justice is a mistake. what we need to do is hold the leaders accountable who are not using the tools we have given them such as the uniform code of military justice to solve

this problem. don't take the tool away. what we have to do is hold those accountable who aren't using the tool properly. the chain of command is the essence of who we are. my experience tells me i trust the chain of command, i trust our commanders. that doesn't mean 100% of commanders are doing the right thing. and those who are not, we have to hold accountable. that's what we have to do. we have to make sure we are taking care of our victims, we are providing them the resources in order for them to move forward, that they don't become victims again and again and again. what i mean by that is not a victim of sexual assault but a victim of the process. and we have to put procedures in place that ensure that doesn't happen, that we have -- that we propecttekt our victims. that we fake care of our victims and -- protect our victims, that we take care of our victims and the best way to

do that is a strong chain of command. this is a problem throughout our society. it bothers me that in the u.s. army we should be the ones who can solve this problem. we've dedicated ourselves and we'll continue to dedicate ourselves to this. we've had an increase in reports of sexual assault. i predicted that. i knew that was going to happen. because people are understanding now we're taking this seriously and many of the reports that have been increased are ones that happened five years ago, four years ago, six years ago. people are now understanding they can come forward. it's not perfect yet. we still have a long way to go. and the pressure we're getting is good. because that will help us continue to make sure that we stay on point to solve this problem. for me, as the chief of staff of the army, this is fundamental. as a soldier, it's -- we're supposed to have complete trust

in each other. for us to be successful, we have to trust the person on our right and our left. it doesn't matter if it's a male or a female. it doesn't matter the color of your skin. it doesn't your religion. we have to be able to trust each other. and as long as we have sexual assault, sexual harassment, that goes against the fabric of who we are. and that's the trust that we have to have to sustain ourselves. so we have to get after this problem. and we will continue to go after it as we move forward. it's also important because of talent. i want the best talent in the military. and in order to get the best talent, i got to create the environment that allows all of our soldiers to be able to maximize their potential. the number of female serving is growing, and we got to make sure that we create an environment that allows them to

be successful, that they can maximize their potential so we can utilize their talent, so we can continue to be successful as a military and to me that's critical to us as we move forward. >> you mentioned culture change in this area is necessary. to what extent does military culture where women historically was not equal to men contribute to the problem? >> well, there's lots of things that contribute to the culture problem. i remind everybody, we get people from all different backgrounds. when somebody comes into the army, we get people from different fiscal backgrounds. we get people from different family backgrounds. we get people from different religious backgrounds. we get people from different parts of the country. we get people -- we represent the united states. so what's important to us is as we bring them into the army, they have to understand, what are the norms of the army

culture? and we have to make sure that they start doing that from the day they step into the army that we have a different culture and that we're going to enforce -- we're going to enforce that culture. we're not going to tolerate those that don't. we're not there. but that's what's key. that's got to start from the time you come in until the day you leave. it really is in my mind about understanding that. because many people come from very -- you know, one of the things i learned when i came to the army, i was really naive. because i was very fortunate. when i grew up, i grew up, as i said, northern new jersey. i had a strong family. i had a mother and father. i had uncles, aunts. i had grandfather, grand -- who cared about me, who made sure they nurtured me, who set me on the right path of the moral and ethical values. not everybody comes from that background. i didn't -- it took me two or three years in the army to

figure that out. because i was sheltered. you know, many of our young men and women who come in the army maybe has one parent, maybe has no parents, maybe comes from dysfunctional backgrounds and we have to mold them into a force and a culture that allows them to succeed. we have many success stories that i could talk about, that people from those backgrounds today are very successful. but we now got to make sure we do that as a culture. my guess is -- i say this all the time when i go around talking. there's probably 10% of the army who believe women shouldn't be in the army. i want to identify them and tell them that's not the kind of person we need in our army today because that's not who our society is, that's not who our country represents. you always going to have that. but what you have to develop is a culture that doesn't tolerate

that kind of an attitude. and that's what we have to work towards as we move forward. >> the defense department sexual assault response panel is holding two days of hearings this week. why aren't those hearings open to the public and to the press? >> i don't know. [laughter] >> when you find out you can get back to us. [laughter] >> i'd ask that question to congress. i think they're holding the hearing. >> speaking of women in the military, the army and other services have been ordered to lift the ground combat exclusion for women. when do you expect the army will open ranger school and some other schools that remain closed to women? and when they do, will the curriculum or requirements for the courses change? >> so last year the secretary

of defense, secretary panetta signed as order that says there's no more exclusion of females from any -- there's no restrictions on females serving in any duty assignments from all the services. as part of that, we are given a period of time that i have to report back at the beginning of january of 2016, the end of 2015, i have to report back on how we're going to do that. so what we're doing -- what we're doing now is we are going through a very significant process on how we will integrate women into all m.o.a.'s within the army. -- m.o.s.'s within the army. we have taken outside expertise, inside expertise. we are developing common standards. and it's really basically three -- the four branches that are affected, artillery, engineers, armor and infantry in the army. and we are now developing those

common standards and figuring out what they will be as we begin to integrate women into those m.o.a.'s and specialties. -- m.o.s.'s and specialties. at the end of 2015 i have to report out to say, yes, we'll integrate them in all those. i have to make an argument on why where he -- on why we shouldn't. we should be able to integrate by the end of 2015. the other thing we're looking at is we're looking at the initiatives it takes in order to set them up for success. how do we shape this in such a way where we just don't throw women into these jobs without the right preparation? and what i mean is not preparation of the individual but preparation of having the right leaders in place, having mentors in place, having an environment that allows them to be successful so we're doing work to study that. and as we moved down this process and ws -- as we open

more positions to women we'll review the schools that are open to women. but the one thing i'll say that i have been very adamant about is we will not reduce standards. the standards will remain the same. and all the women that i talk to do not want the standards reduced. they want it to be standards need to that's why we study this and get it right. so i think we're on the right path. we've opened up actually some artillery jobs that were not opened already this year to female officers and to female soldiers and we'll begin to do that solely -- slowly over time as we work our way through this process. >> looking to spending challenges, can you comment on how sequestration, the shutdown last year and general partisan bickering have affected military readiness?

>> so there's several issues with sequestration. let me first talk about the shutdown. the impact of the shutdown frankly has been on the, in my mind, the morale of our civilian work force. who's been dedicated themselves to the army, to the navy, to the air force, to the department of defense for sometime because there's two things that happened based on sequestration. we had -- originally went from a 12-day to sakes-day furlough. immediately after that we had a shutdown. -- to a six-day furlough. immediately after that we had a shutdown. so they lost their confidence base ready on the security that they had. we got to regain that confidence in our civilian work force. and so that's one of the challenges we have in sequestration. let me talk a little bit broader about the readiness issues.

so there's two issues with sequestration. first in my mind for example my -- first in my mind, from my perspective, the reductions that were part of sequestration made it impossible to properly manage in running the enterprise of the u.s. army, u.s. navy, u.s. air force and i'll talk about the army. you got to remember our budget is based on really three major things. people, our ability to modernize ourselves and our readiness, and there's lots of things under readiness. there's several things under modernization, capital investment and other things we do and you have to keep those in the right balance. sequestration forces us to go right out of balance. because i can't take out people fast enough to get the dollars to put into readiness and modernization in order to keep that balance. and so what it's created in the

army, we have about a three-year window, 2014, 2015, 2016 where we're really out of balance so our readiness and our modernization will take a hit. we are taking out 20,000 a year. if i go higher than that, it costs me more to take them out and so we start reducing the savings that we're gaining from the people. so that's the dilemma that we have. so what it did is it impacted our readiness in 2013. now, the agreement that was made in december, the bipartisan budget agreement, helps us significantly in 2014. so it buys back, it gives us money to buy back some of the readiness. 2015 it's a lower number. but the problem is that's great for 2014 and i'm thankful for that, that we've gotten that money, but if we don't sustain it we're going to go right back

to where we were in terms of this problem between the balance of in-strength readiness and modernization. so we have to keep that. right now if we go to sequestration, i can't get that in balance until about 2020. so what that does is, that gives us a period of about six years of vulnerability because of this imbalance that we have. and that's the struggle that we're having right now as we work our way through this. and that's my concern. now, i would just say on top of that as i believe the sequestration number is too low because i believe it doesn't allow us to do the things in this world as we watch it every day continues to have significant uncertainty. and the american people expect us to respond if something goes wrong and we will. but the cost will be is the soldiers that we send will not be ready like we want them to be or we might not be able to

sustain an operation as long as we need to because we don't have the numbers. so up until 2020 it's a readiness issue, a modernization issue. past 2020 it's a size issue. are we big enough to do the missions that we'll be asked to do? and i am a bit worried about that number in the end, especially in the army. >> that end number, is the army trying to have the number at 420,000 given with the budget? >> so there's no decisions made on that. we'll continue to work that. what we have done is we have -- the armys a going to move to 490,000 by the end of 2015 instead of 2017. the reason we sped that up is to better balance the readiness and modernization a bit quicker and that equals 20,000 a year that i talked about. as we -- as i stand here today

worried -- we started at 570,000. we're about 527,000 or so. we'll be down to about 510,000 by the end of this year. by the end of 2015 we'll be down to 490,000. then we'll have to make decisions on where we go from there and we are constantly working that internal right now to the building as we look at the resources that will be made available to us. >> the national guard is advocating for an expanded role saying it can provide combat troops at the fraction of a cost. general grass is our speaker at this podium in two days. what about this proposal? >> for the army for many years now is structured to become implementry. what i mean by that is -- structured to be complementary. what i mean by that you have a national guard that has a certain capability.

the capabilities are not interchangeable. there's a reason why the active component is more expensive. it brings you a higher level of readiness because they're full time. they are trained and ready to do things at a higher level because they spend every day focused on that. our national guard who's done an incredible job in the last 0 years trains 39 days a year. and that covers personnel training. so when you're talking about integrating organizationally, it's not interchangeable. so to say that the national guard's cheaper, they are going to replace the active component, it's not true. the active component cannot replace the national guard. they bring us a capability that allows us to operate in the states. they are complementary to each other. so it's about getting the right balance between the two. in the 2000's when we were

involved with two wars in iraq and afghanistan, we increased the active component and the percentage of it was 51% in the active, 49% in the reserves which includes the national guard and u.s. army reserve. as we get finished with our reductions, which are mostly almost all coming out of the active component, we will go to 54% in the reserve component and 46% in the active. we think that's about the right percentage that we need to go forward and meet our national security needs. so what that means is as we go forward and we have to go lower than 490,000 in the active component, we will have to take a percentage out of the guard and reserve as we move forward. and we're still working on what those numbers are. but it's about keeping that right percentage, about 54% in the reserve, about 46% in the active and based on the analysis we've done, which is quite substantial, that gets us about the right level of active readiness. it also gives us the ability

for the national guard to respond over longer periods of time. and it also allows the national guard to continue to be responsive within their own states. and we think that's about the right balance. now, if we have to go to the lowest numbers, which is full sequestration, nobody agrees with those numbers. but that's based on the budget levels that we were given. and as i mixed earlier, i think they -- as i mentioned earlier, i think they might be a bit too low. it's not something that will happen tomorrow. this reduction will continue to happen between now through the end of this decade as we move forward. >> the proposed cuts to military pensions have been of course a lightning rod on both sides of that issue. tell us if you make the cuts that have been proposed to recent retirees who are not yet of retirement age, is that breaking a promise that was made to those people when they

joined the military? >> the rich ue of paying compensation is a big issue and -- so the issue of paying compensation is a big issue and important issue. i will not talk specifically what was passed in the last bill. i'm going -- i want to talk about paying compensation in general terms. so the way i would describe this is that bake in the late 1990's and 2000's there was a pay gap between those serving in the military and those with equivalent education levels, experience, etc., in our civilian sector. so everyone has worked very hard to close that gap. and i would argue in fact we have closed the gap. in fact in some cases you could argue we've exceeded that. so it's time for us to look at pay and compensation to make sure it's in line and something

that can be sustainable. i believe that if we continue along the path that we're on that the cost of soldiers, sailors, airmen, marines will be at such a level that we'll have to even reduce our in strength more because we can't afford them. and so what we're trying to do now is do something that's reasonable. we're not cutting pay and benefits. we're trying to reduce the rate of growth of pay and benefits. and so we're looking at packages that aloy us -- it's going -- allow us -- it's got to be a comprehensive package that allows us to do this. what i'm worried about is we can't be piecemealed because we have to worry about the impacts on our forces and is it enough to keep our all-volunteer force? we need to look at it as a total package. we're attempting to do that. we're still working our way through it. but it's something that -- you have to be very careful about how you do this, because what

you don't want to do is under -- what you don't want to do is undercut the foundation of an all-volunteer army or volunteer navy or volunteer air force so it could impact the significance of the future. it's something that has to be done in a comprehensive way and we're looking that as the joint chiefs and our hope is to put together a package is one in a will sustain the all-volunteer army and be fair to our soldiers and families and retirees but look to the costs of the future. >> what do you think of chairman issa's proposal to link rolling back the cuts in military benefit increases to being able to end saturday delivery at the postal service? is it a wise move to link the future of army benefits with the future of the postal

service? [laughter] >> i concern myself with what i just said. it's taking care of our soldiers and our families and our veterans and our retirees and my focus is on ensuring we do that properly. so, you know, i'm not -- i have not thought about being linked to anything else. what i'm worried about is making sure we have the right compensation packages for our men and women who serve and make sure that we're able to sustain an all-volunteer force. that enables us to sustain the level of national security that's necessary for our country. >> looking to asia, what is the army doing to support the defense strategic guidance call for a rebalance in the shift -- in the asia pacific region and what does that mean for other regions, especially the middle east? >> so what a lot of people

don't realize is today as i stand here, we have about 80 -- somewhere between 84,000 and 88,000 soldiers assigned to the pacific command. that's quite an investment that we have in the army. that's available to the pacific commander in order for him to prevent conflict, shape the environment within the pacific command. and we're doing that through a variety of ways. we're doing that through rotational presence. we're doing that from building partner capacity. we're doing that from building relationships throughout the region through several different exercises that we do on a regular basis and we're going to continue to do that. what happened, though, in the years of the wars of iraq and afghanistan, many of those soldiers that were assigned to pacom were off in iraq and afghanistan. last year we stopped that so they are now back in the pacific region conducting these proper operations. that's our rebalance, as we call it. i mentioned quickly before about our concept of regional

alignment of forces. what we'll do is those units that are assigned to our forces command which are most of the commands in the continental united states, they will then be aligned to centcom. they will be aligned with africom and be aligned with other areas in order for them to be used in order to support those combatant -- we have about 28,000 soldiers in africa based on the concept. we have 45 soldiers who's been there now for several weeks at the embassy in sudan, providing security for the embassy. those are the kind of missions that we'll use that we have from the soldiers in the continental united states, using them in an expeditionary manner, to build security capabilities around the world. an example i'd like to use is about three or four weeks ago we deployed a 15-man platoon commanded by a female soldier

to conduct training and humanitarian assistance in ethiopia. those are the kind of things that we'll do to continue to support combatant commanders as we come out of -- we have rotational forces currently in the middle east. various places in the middle east. we'll continue to support that long as there's requirement from the combatant commands. we allow them to become experts in that region so they're better able to execute the missiones that are given so we have significant soldiers assigned in the pacific which helps us with that rebalance. we'll use forces that are in the continental united states ford -- in order for us to engage in very key areas such as north africa, such as places in the middle east which will enable us in order to continue to provide what's necessary for them to prevent conflict in the future. >> how do you resolve the conflict with marines related to the asia pacific?

>> there is no conflict. i find this very interesting. this is a washington thing. it really is. this is a washington thing. gosh. marines and army can't operate in the same -- we've been doing it in afghanistan and iraq for about 12 years. this is about utilizing every part of the service to accomplish the mission. this is not army versus marine corps. this is about us utilizing -- we have very distinct assets. they have very distinct assets. about using it available to the pacom commander to execute the mission. we don't based on the size. it's about responding in case we have to win in a war. that's what our size is based on. this is a washington thing. so this is not a competition between the marine corps and the army. this is about providing the capabilities that we each have to support the combatant commanders who are given their

responsibility to maintain security around the world. >> can you comment on the deployment of a calvary brigade that was announced to korea today? is that a temporary increase or just replacement of forward-based units? >> so what's going on is as we have -- as we're coming out of iraq and afghanistan, one of the decisions we made in the restructuring our brigade an combat teams. we went to two about a tailon brigades. i don't want to get too into the weeds here. we did that in order to meet our requirements in iraq and afghanistan. in the past we had three about a tailian brigades. through all the analysis we've done it allows us to do what we need to do. we have a two battalion brigade

in korea this is rounding out this brigade to be a third battalion in the brigade like we're doing in the rest of the army and we'll continue to rotate those units in and out of korea. so this is something we planned for a while. it's something that we're executing now. and it allows us then to make sure we're consistent as we apply the resources of our army not only in korea but in other places around the world. >> want to be sure to talk a little bit about china before we run out of time. you've expressed your concern about cybersecurity threats from china and of course china has declared a new air defense identification zone. can you talk a little bit about your concerns there and what the army's role will be in addressing those two issues? >> what i'd like to do is talk about cyber in a more general aspect. i think it's an important topic. -- know, how i -- cyberis

cyber is -- cyber operations is important as we move forward. in some cases you consider it a new form of maneuver. you know, what it is is it's relatively now inexpensive way to attempt to impact issues around the world. and i'm not going to point fingers at china, iran, russia or anybody else, but it's about a capability that people can to xploit in order to try gain advantages. and from a military perspective, it's about how do we use that in order to -- how do we understand that to protect our networks, to protect our systems and how does that impact future warfare, because it is going to impact future warfare and we have to understand that. from a national issue, i'll just say this is about our ability to protect our financial net borks, our infrastructure -- networks, our

infrastructure and it's an important issue and we have to recognize this is a new form of people attempting potentially to fluence what's going on in the united states -- influence what's going on in the united states. so it's incumbent on us to improve our capability. in the army we stood up an army cybercommand. we're reorganizing ourselves. we are going to stand up a cybercenter of excellence soon and we're doing this in order to create the capabilities and expertise to deal with this. we already have some significant capability, but we are going to expand it as we move forward. but as you know, as you're watching playing out every day, there's some very important and fundamental legal and policy issues that have to be worked through as we continue to deal with this new threat. and so for me that's probably the most important thing. the china and the

establishment of a -- what they consider to be a sovereign fly zone to china, again, this is about us working and working through some very difficult issues in order for us to ensure that we sustain a level of security that's necessary for us and in the best interest of our allies and in the best interest of building strong relationships with china so we main a level of security that allows economies to grow so in is something that we have to constantly work with them and constantly work with our other partners in the region as we work together. >> we are unfortunately almost out of time. but before asking one last question i got, just a couple of housekeeping matters. first, i'd like to remind you of our upcoming speakers. on january 9 we have gentlemen frank jay grass of the national guard -- general frank jay grass of the national guard. we'll follow up with some of your questions. and we have joseph boardman,

the c.e.o. of amtrak. on january 15 we have christine legard, the head of the i.m.f. secondly, i'd like to present you with our traditional national press club coffee mug. >> thank you. >> you're welcome. thank you. >> you never have too many coffee mugs. thank you very much. >> thank you. and one last question. we try to end on a light-hearted note. so i am told that you are a big new york giants fan. and that you -- >> that's not light-hearted. [laughter] >> eli manning preceded you a couple years ago as a national press club speaker. i want to know if you have any lessons learned from your army service, strategy, drone strikes, anything that can help -- that you can use as advice for the giants? >> well, first off, i actually am very close friends with tom coughlin who is the coach and i

also had the opportunity to know and get to know very well eli manning. they have some work to do. [laughter] the only thing i'm positive up is we did beat the redskins twice this year. i know that's not saying much but you got to live on whatever you got here. but what i'll say, i think actually we saw some great leadership by the leaders of the giants during very difficult times. they played hard right down to the last game even though they were out of it. i think that will help them as they move forward. that's the kind of spirit we have in our army as well. we'll continue to fight until the last possible minute in order to be successful. so i'm confident the giants will be successful next year. thank you. thank you very much. >> thank you, general, for coming today. i'd also like to thank our

national press club staff, including our journalism institute and broadcast center for helping organize today's event. finally, here's a reminder, you can find more information about the national press club on our website at www.press.org. you can also find a copy of today's program on there. thank you. we are adjourned. [captioning performed by national captioning institute] [captions copyright national cable satellite corp. 2014] mpor

house will be in order. the chair lays before the house a communication from the speaker. the clerk: the speaker's rooms, washington, d.c. january 7, 2014. i hereby appoint the honorable virginia foxx to act as speaker pro tempore on this day. signed, john a. boehner, speaker of the house of representatives. the speaker pro tempore: the prayer will be offered by our guest chaplain, reverend cara