host: email from jan in wisconsin. how much poverty in our country is caused by personal choices such as substance abuse, dropping out of school, having children out of wedlock, single parenthood, etc.? single mothers are far more likely to be in poverty than married women. what can be done to change the root causes of poverty for many? guest: clearly you're talking about a lot of social issues that we need to address through providing strategies to help people, single mothers. i was a single mother. unfortunately i ended up on public assistance, food stamps, and medicaid. but during that period we had some of these initiatives in place where i could get through college, take care of my kids, get a job. i ended up starting a business and working as a legislative, administrative assistant on capitol hill, and here i am today. it would not have happened had it not been for that. this is very complicated. and we are not making excuses for people, but we have to have

strategies in place and policies in place that help people overcome many of these issues and personal responsibility is a factor in this. but it's not the only factor. we have to recognize it's got to be a comprehensive a-- approach to address all the social and economic issues and inequality and inequities we see in our society. host: a little more about your personal story. how long were you on government assistance in the various forms? guest: i'd say about three years. host: in that time that helped you go from where you were to where you are now? guest: there is no way i could have survived, first of all, during that period had it not been for that. it was really a hard time. oftentimes looking for someplace to live. fortunately i had great family who helped me out with my kids during that period. i ended up going back to college and that's what i wanted to do was go to school. not necessarily to run for public office, but so i could

take care of my two little boys. i had been through some trauma and difficult days. i don't know what would have happened to me had i not been able to go to 401 broadway to the welfare office and say i need help. i need help to get through this period. and the american people were there for me. host: what made you think i'm going to go there? or was it a person who influenced you? what was the trigger? guest: mainly i think the trigger was how do i get through the next day and trying to do some research and figure out how to survive during that time period. i want to take care of my kids. i think that was the biggest thing. ow do i take care of these two boys? i knew i had to have a college education and be able to have the skills and knowledge base to have the quality of life to take care of them. it was primarily my kids. host: how old were your boys at the time? guest: they were like three and four. little boys. they are wonderful fathers, family men now. i have five grandchildren. they are doing great. and i'm so proud of my son.

these two little latch key kids who helped me because if it weren't for them and trying to figure out how to help them achieve the quality of life they deserved, don't know what i would have done. yeah, i'm thankful that the american people and president johnson had these programs in place to help me through. it was a bridge over troubled waters and i know for a fact that people don't want to be on food stamps, they don't want to be on medicaid, they don't want to be on public assistance. they want to work, they want to get a job, they want to take care of their family. host: congresswoman barbara lee, thank you very much for your time this morning. . we take you live to the brookings institution where house majority leader eric cantor will talk about his views on school choice and the u.s. education system and also hearing the results of a study by the brown center, their

third annual school choice and competition index. we'll show you as much as we can until the house gavels in later on this hour, probably bout 2:45 eastern. >> you'll see the hash tags up on the screen to either side of me and also the u.r.l. to the interactive website is available there. i've been thinking about what america leads the world in, and it leads the world in many things, but one of the areas i think we don't think much about but which is very relevant to our topic today is that we under deniable lead the world in shopping. [laughter] hink about it. amazon, ebay, travelocity, i ould go on and on with the

esites that promotes shopping. and there is a dizzying array of storefront options everything from physicians and they're supported by digital tools to help us decide on the local restaurant we want to choose or whatever. and in fact, freedom, as we understand it, is very much bound to the ability to choose. our freedom of choice rests on the availability of different providers of the services and goods we want. and if one doesn't serve our needs we turn to another. if we get a bad meal, we try another restaurant next time. if a physician isn't pleasing, the dentist doesn't do what we want, we shop for another. but whereas most of our economy embraces choice, until recently our public education system has been a local government monopoly in which the only choice families could exercise if they wanted or need to send their child to a public school was the choice of where to live. that was available to those who could afford to move where the

schools are good, and let's call that status quo zip code education. you want to buy a good zip code because it's got a good school associated with it. that's changing and it's changing in a number of ways. notably we see the growth of public charter schools. years d not exist 25 ago. they presently enroll about 5% of public school students in states which permit the formation of charter schools. they have at least a 20% share in 32 large school districts. here in the district of columbia, the charter school representation of the market is now about 45%, which is quite extraordinary, in one of the districts i'll be talking about today, new orleans, it's about 80%. so that's dramatic growth within a short period of time in terms of the evolution of our education system. we see the expansion and technical refinement of open enrollment systems involving traditional public schools where parents can choose which

regular public school they want their child to attend. and they can do that rather than accepting an assignment that's based on their place of residence. we see the emergence in indiana, louisiana, arizona of statewide voucher programs that bring to 12, the number of states that provide a public subsidy for certain categories of students, frequently those with disabilities, to attend private schools of a parent's choice. we see continued increases in the availability of technology-based in virtual education as an alternative to traditional seat-based education. in florida, for example, students can take advantage of the florida virtual school which is free to them and take a variety of courses in lieu of taking those courses through their traditional public school district. and certainly relevant to our guest speeblinger today, we've seen the passage in the u.s. house of representatives of the re-authorization of the elementary and secondary education act, a provision of

which allows economically disadvantaged families to take their federal dollars as a backpack with a child to the public school of their choice, including charter schools. what we do with the education choice and competition intext is we chronicle these changes and this is the third iteration. we plan to take the index back in time so you could look at the status of choice 10 years ago, and to continue to update it annually. what we do in the district, in the index is look at the 100 largest school districts in america, because that's been the most of the action in terms of k-12 choice and competition and we added a few smaller districts that are innovators in choice that we wanted to examine as well. what does it take to get a good score as a geographical area providing choice to families in terms of public education? well, first, you need a lot of choice. and this includes good traditional public schools, magnet schools, charter

schools, affordable private schools and virtual education. second, you need a choice process that maximizes the match between presental preference and school assignment and that would include things -- parental preference and school assignment and that would include things like no default. everybody can choose rather than fight themselves out through a laborous process. a common application so you apply once instead-15 or 20 times and really good information on the choices that you're making. third, it requires that there be funding in district management processees that favor the growth of popular schools at the expense of unpopular schools. this includes, for example, weighted school funding, the funding grows as well and likewise as schools lose students, their funding is reduced. interestingly around the country, even in districts that have embraced choice, there's

often a harmless provision such as schools that are losing students, they get smaller class size and more facilities and less crowding. and we'd like to see processees for closing, finally, on popular schools rather than letting them linger on for years when nobody wants to go there. finally, we'd like to see subsidies for the costs involved in choice. so if i have choice and i'm an of a lieutenant parent and i could afford to -- affluent parent and i could afford to stay at home and drive my car across town if i have choice whereas if i am a poor parent i don't have an ability to do that, that is not a choice. so we'd like to see districts covering the cost of transportation to schools of choice. the winners of this year in terms of the education choice in competition index are the winners from last year. in terms of the school -- the

districts of innovation, it's the recovery school district in new orleans and then orleans parish and these are both, of course, in louisiana. they are smaller districts but they are at the forefront of introducing a very extensive and well-designed choice architecture. among the larger districts, new york city, is in first as it was last year. then houston and denver. we've been particularly interested in denver which rose from 24th to fifth place last year to this year based on not a change in the availability of choice but a change in the way that parents could exercise choice. so now they have a one app process. parents apply once, they list their schools in preference and the process is one that matches families with those choices in a way that minimizes the difference between what they want and what they get and it does it in a way that can't be

done any better given that the preferences that parents have expressed. and so while every family doesn't get its first choice and as a parent, one is understandably distressed when one doesn't get their first choice, almost every family gets a really good choice. so that in denver in the last year, 83% of parents got a school assignment for their child that was their first, second or third choice. and there were fewer than 400 families in all of denver that didn't get a choice that was in their top five. so it's good to see choice out there. it's good to see districts doing well. if you look at our report you'll see that nobody is really perfect. even the best districts have a way to go. but the progress is really encouraging. and think about it in denver. two years ago compared to last year. two years ago there were 30 different mechanisms you had to go through to exercise a

choice. different applications for every charter school. different timetables. it was just a nightmare. and now you do it once, you get the best possible outcome that's available to you. that's really progress. with that, as our introduction to the index for this year, let me turn to what is a great pleasure and that is to introduce our speaker, majority leader eric cantor. leader cantor has his undergraduate degree from george washington university, his law degree from the college of william and mary and a masters degree from columbia university. he came to washington when i did, in 2001. he's done -- elected every two years since in his district that is near richmond by margins that range from very healthy to overwhelming. -- had a immediate oric

immediate ork rise in the house. he's known as a strategic thinker and is largely known for his involvement in health care issues and budget issues heretofore. but he has become a very active voice for education reform. i -- my attention was drawn to what he's been doing by his offering a floor amendment to the e.s.a. re-authorization in the house that offered the title 1 portable funding that i talked about previously. really federal funding is an impediment to choice because it's delivered through a mechanism through central districts that doesn't allow funding to transparently follow kids. and so a change in federal legislation that let money follow kids would be great. he has recently been visiting schools of choice around the country. denver, philadelphia, new orleans, d.c., to get a sense

on the ground of what's happening and what people think. so leader cantor, we're very honored with your presence and look forward very much to your comments. thank you. [applause] >> good afternoon. ross, thank you very much for the introduction and for the invitation. it is an honor for me to be here at brookings. i want to congratulate the brown center on the third annual unveiling of the education choice competitive index report. and i also want to thank everybody here in this room for all of you do to help fix our education system in america. and i know there are plenty of different perspectives that we bring to the pame table, but the fact that -- to the table, but the fact that we're trying to help kids toward fixing the education system is really

saying something. so thank the brown center and for brookings for having us. let me begin with a very simple principle. we cannot be a great country without great schools. as this year's index notes, america is in the midst of an education revolution with a shift towards more choice for families. now, as russ says, i've spent some time over the last year and a half and then some in communities across the country, including my community of richmond, visiting schools witnessing where school choice is firmly taking root. and i can tell you it is making a difference and improving the lives of children and their families. now, we should first celebrate the dedication of the parents, certainly the teachers and the advocates in those communities who have worked tirelessly to make these things happen. at the same time, i know that we're all here and that we can

all agree that we must not rest until every school in every community -- in every community adequately prepares every student for a success in their pursuit, whether it be college, career or life. now, even if a small portion of our schools fail, we all fail. whether we have children in school or not, all of us benefit if our schools improve, and we'll all pay the price if we fail the next generation. right now school choice is under attack, and as ross says, there's a long way to go, even with those communities at the top of this year's rankings. and it's up to all of us, and it's why we're here, to work for and fight for the families who are going to suffer the consequences if school choice is taken away.

now, many of us have, like i have, been across the country and seen for our very own eyes, with our own eyes, what the difference that school choice makes. last september one of the visits that i made, i was in philadelphia at the freari public charter school where i met an incredibly young man. his name was elijah, and he was a student there and he had a speech impediment. now, a few years ago elijah's parents, james and crystal jones, felt that elijah was not getting the personal attention or receiving the effective education that he needed at school. and so they ended up at freari, and i asked the parents -- i said, what made you choose freari? well, unequivocally, they both said, first, they offered a safe place for elijah to go every day. but then they said that they

were impressed with the administration and the faculty there by their genuine commitment to try and afford elijah the necessary tools for him to succeed. even if that meant spending extra time with elijah due to his special needs. so because elijah's parents had the freedom to choose, elijah is thriving and he's finally able because he's been given a chance to pursue his dreams. now, to me elijah reminds us that behind each child, behind each statistic is a child. it's a young boy or young girl, young man or young woman whose jen -- generation will in the not-too-distant future be responsible for the future of america. now, we have a responsibility to them right now, a responsibility, yes, to our own children if we have them, to

our country's children, to our communities and to our country's future. to ensure that the kids of the next generation do graduate, prepared for life and prepared to lead. now, all parents and families should have a safe place for their children to learn, but the harsh reality is, as the index indicates, that millions of kids across the country are denied the chance that elijah's family has and that's unacceptable. now, politics and policy are part of our every day here in washington. most times if not fortunate or unfortunate, but safe and effective schools for all children isn't and should not be a political issue. it's not a partisan issue. it matters to every single one

of us. and it especially matters to those living in poverty who are desperate for a lifeline. now, for many families living in poverty, that poverty spans generations. parents and grandparents, they've all struggled to try and realize the american dream. now to me school choice is the surest way to break this vicious cycle of poverty, and we have got to act fast before it's too late for too many. the fact is the federal government's approach to fixing our schools has been too slow, too sporadic and too ineffective. and while we wait we are losing generations of kids. for far too long, the federal government's approach to fixing the system has been based on two principles. spend more money and give more

control to washington. and since the mid 1960's, the federal government has spent billions of dollars to improve schools in low-income areas ith little to no effect. americans have the right to ask, why do our student test rate lag those of the other nations in the industrialized world? why in our large cities do only half of public high school students graduate on time? when the fact is our biggest cities offer advantages that should make it easier, not harder, to have innovative and effective schools. surrounded by universities, cultural institutions and diversity of industries, children in urban areas should be succeeding. so why are they so often in so many cases put in dangerous school environments where they

don't learn the math, science, language and arts that we would hope and they don't graduate? the simple act of graduating high school not only dramatically increases the hance someone has a job but it dramatically decreases the chance that that someone turns to crime. in america's large cities, unemployment and crime are staggering problems. introducing choice into these areas, especially, helps the kids and just as importantly helps those communities. the dropout rate in urban areas must be brought down to the national average, and school choice will help us achieve that goal. now, working together all of us should make teaching easier for teachers and we should make learning easier for students. we must embrace the teachers, the schools and the communities that are succeeding, remove the

roadblocks and expand school choice. this is how we're going to begin to close the opportunity gap and produce real results for all america's students, especially those who are so desperately in need of our help . on a recent trip to new orleans, as russ pointed out, orleans parish is in the lead as the index indicates, i visited a catholic school in downtown new orleans where i met a young student named brian. now, brian never met his mom because she's not around anymore. the only way he's ever spoken to his father is through prison bars. brian is being raised by his grandma, who, when i was there, she just found out she had been diagnosed with cancer. so on all accounts, one would say brian doesn't have a lot at home. but what he does have when he comes to school is a lot more than most students in america.

he's in a great school surrounded by caring teachers who go above and beyond and are truly committed to his progress. brian is thriving. he told me he's got big plans for the future. and at 11 years old, he's aiming high. he says that he's got his heart set on going to college. now, brian's got the opportunity to attend this school because of louisiana scholarship program, a program that was championed by governor jindal who was here, russ tells me last year, a program that governor jindal provides kids who live below the poverty line with the resources to attend a school of their family's choice. now, when speaking here at brookings, governor jindal said, to oppose school choice is to oppose equal opportunity for poor and disadvantaged kids

in america. i couldn't agree more, but don't his or my word for it. just look at the results. these scholarships have brought hope and opportunity to thousands of students just like brian across the state of louisiana. and as russ mentioned, other states. what governor jindal has done in louisiana is a model that governors across the country can and should adopt. now, unfortunately, this program is under threat. attorney general holder and the justice department took louisiana to court claiming that its education opportunity program impeds progress made through desegregation. in other words, the attorney general is accusing the state of using this program to discriminate against minorities. now, this kind of attack on an effective program in a is

designed to help everyone, providing scholarships to kids of every background, to me is political payback to those who oppose school choice. they see school choice as a threat and they're right. school choice is a threat to the status quo. school choice protects families and children, not bureaucracies. school choice is about making sure that every student, like elijah and like brian, who have high aspirations and big dreams beyond the challenge in their daily lives, ensures them that they can have the best teachers and the best possible school environment. surely that is a goal that all of us can agree on. after repeated calls to do so, the attorney general withdrew his initial request to permanently shut down the

program. however, he's still demanding that the federal government have a veto right over each child's scholarship award and that parents cannot be notified about their child's scholarship until it receives federal approval. now, governor jindal has correctly identified this as an attempt to, "red tape and regulate the program to death." now, i challenge general holder to visit louisiana and meet with the opportunities and parents who participate in this education scholarship program. i challenge general holder to look these families in the eye as i have, to go and talk with brian and his grandma, to listen to how the scholarship has improved their lives and hope for the future and then perhaps he can try and explain to them how what he's trying to do is going to help them.

now, unfortunately the attacks on school choice and its successful programs are not limited to louisiana. over the last decade in new york city, the bloomberg administration made it easier for charter schools to co-locate to traditional other public schools in the same building. i know their place on the list on the index is indicative of those efforts. now, that may not sound revolutionary change, co-locate for those public schools, but what it meant for those charter schools was real, meaningful improvement for families in the city because their real estate costs were defrayed and the number of charter schools grew from 17 to 183 charter schools in 12 years. but now it is being reported that that city's new mayor, bill deblasio, is considering a moratorium on charter school

co-locations and may even go as far as charging them additional rent. now, this move has the potential to devastate the growth of education opportunity in such a exit tiff real estate market like new york city -- competitive real estate market like new york city. just think, how many families will be harmed, how many families will have their choice taken away if mayor deblasio per sues these policies? mayor deblasio should abandon this idea and should allow instead new york city's charter schools to flourish. you see, on issues like this, the house of representatives and our committees will remain vigilant in our efforts to ensure that no one, that no one from the government stands in the schoolhouse door between any child and a good education. right here in our nation's capital there is huge progress

in school choice, again, as the index notes, but there's also an assault that's going on at the same time. since it was created in 2004 with bipartisan support, the d.c. opportunity scholarship program has received more than 11,000 applications and with over 1,600 students receiving aid to attend the school of their choice in the past year alone. now, recent studies showed that charter school students here in washington gained the equivalence of an extra 72 days in reading and 101 days in math instruction over the course of a year compared to their counterparts in traditional public schools here. what an incredible achievement. yet, despite the program's success and popularity, president obama has refused to include funding for it in his annual budget. now why? the president should fund the

d.c. opportunity scholarship program in his upcoming budget. plain and simple, the program works. no matter what party or what philosophy we adhere to or come from, we should all leave no depout that the d.c. opportunity scholarship -- doubt that the d.c. opportunity scholarship will receive the funding and the support that it deserves. now, the house, as russ indicated, has been very active and has been leading on school choice. in july we did pass the student success act. now, this bill was built around the idea that chairman kleine of our education committee is working on and that is we should learn from another's successes. now, this act will help expand education opportunity by providing incentives for states to replicate high-quality charter schools. the bill requires that school systems provide parents access to information about the

performance of their local schools. parents can then fuelly hold schools accountable for the quality of education that their children receive. the student success act also includes an amendment that russ talked about that i authored that for the first time does allow federal funds to follow title 1 kids, for the first time, and this ensures that the priority remains what is best for those children and their families. no one else's priorities. with the passage of the bill, i believe the house took an important step toward advancing education opportunity for all students in america, and i urge the senate to begin consideration today of that house-passed bill. now, more than two million students across america are now taking advantage of public

charter schools. over the past five years, student enrollment in these charter schools has grown by 80%. and another 225,000 families use tax credit scholarships or vouchers to attend private schools. school choice programs are experiencing this kind of expansion for one very simple reason. they work. they deliver real and measurable results. so it is my personal goal that in 10 years every child in america will have education opportunity through school choice no matter where they live. now, progress isn't easy, we all know this, in this town especially, but nothing truly important is ever very easy. so improving our schools, fixing our education system, we all know is not going to happen overnight. but we do have a responsibility

to make it a priority and work at it each and every day. and i know that thanks to brookings and the brown center, russ and all your work and all the work and good will of the folks in this room as well as the millions of dedicated parents and families across this country that we really are well on our way. so thank you very much for having me. [applause] >> well, thank you for very interesting remarks. some of our guests are unwilling to say anything controversial. i thank you in that respect. another issue that you touched on and i want to delve into further with you and that is the no child left behind act, the current law governing elementary and secondary education was passed into law in 2001.

here we are in 2014 with no re-authorization. the student success act was passed on a party line vote in the house. what do you see as the prospects for some kind of bipartisan agreement on the nation's education law? and where is education choice in there? this used to be distinctly nonpartisan so when we released the index in the first year, i was getting calls from the democratic staffers on the hill saying this is something my boss might be able to get behind. with the deblasio victory in new york, attack on public charter schools, it seems the calculus is changing a little bit. so your reflections on the politics of education reform, particularly on the hill would be appreciated. >> sure. well, first of all, i think that the senate has got to go and take up a re-authorization of the secondary education act. i mean, that is number one.

and just as so many other things in this town, certainly there is some deep-rooted differences on secondary education policy. it doesn't mean that the senate shouldn't act and then we can go ahead and begin the process of trying to understand where there is commonality and focus on the things we can agree on. and russ, as you say, charter schools is something that i believe has bipartisan support. mayor deblasio aside, i do think there certainly are plenty of folks on both sides of the aisle that agree school choice and public charter schools is one. i know that several months ago arne duncan, secretary of education, came down to richmond where i'm from and we held a roundtable. it was on higher education, but we had a discussion about charter schools and what we could do perhaps to work together on those. so again, not unlike so many of the other issues here, i think the focus should be on trying to see where we can come together.

there are so many easy opportunities to differ. let's take on the project of seeing where we can come together in common and really, as i just said, it's on behalf of those kids like elijah and like brian and the nearly dozen more that i met around the country that have really experienced a change in their life trajectory because of school choice. >> thank you. i'd like to give those of you in the audience the opportunity to ask some questions. the rules here is -- are that you ask a question, you tell us who you are, i call on you, you tell us who you are, you ask your question briefly and give us a chance to respond. so please raise your hand if you'd like to ask a question. call on the gentleman next to the wall here, if you'll give us a chance to get a microphone to you, i'd be very ppreciative.

>> far right. my name is george peeler, i co-founded the washington scholarship fund, which was the precursor of the opportunity scholarship. i'd like to ask the leader in ght of his remarks about the status of the d.c. scholarships what the leadership is doing in the current omnibus negotiation that there's increased and stable funding for the d.c. opportunity scholarship and hopefully the same thing over the next two-year budget cycle. >> i would mention -- your hope as mine is that we can maintain the level of funding. in this city, the benefits who are impoverished and have seen the lifeline that that program offers. so we have it certainly as a priority. i'm hopeful that next week when we vote on the package of

spending in domestic priorities that that will be one of them. >> so it's a must do i think? >> for me. >> i'd add to leader cantor's remarks on the program working, it's also far less expensive on a per pupil basis than a regular education in d.c. next question. all right. the gentleman just to your right. >> thank you. i'm steven, retired from the u.s. council for international business and prior to that the treasury department. for either of you gentlemen, i didn't hear the position, do the teachers union have a position on school choice and if so what is their position? teachers say the unions -- i mean, there's not just one teacher union and the teacher union is on a per state basis.

teachers unions have been more open to public school choice in the form of charters, and generally hostile to choice in the form of vouchers that allow students to attend private schools. but the support of charters schools have been tepid at best and that's because most charter schools, the teachers are not unionized in those schools and so just -- i mean, if you're a teachers union, why would you want to encourage the growth of schools in which you don't have numbers? >> i would add as well, i'm from virginia and those of us from virginia here know we don't have teachers unions, we don't have public employee unions in virginia and yet we have one of the most challenged charter school laws in the country, i would say. if i'm correct, maybe four, five charter schools in the whole state. i visited the largest one in richmond. and it is doing phenomenal for

the kids that have that opportunity to choose that school. overwhelmingly minority in population. and so it's i think more of a question of those who are just supporting the status quo. because, again, in a state that doesn't have teachers unions, per se, there is a lot of opposition for charter schools and that's the kind of thing i think we can work together to try and change that perception. charter schools is something that really is to me the first step towards allowing people to begin to feel comfortable that competition and choice frankly could be a good thing for people and for kids. it's not just getting kids out of failing schools. maybe there's a good school that a parent perhaps feel that doesn't best suit their child's needs and there's one across town or down the street that ould better do so.

>> please give us a chance to get the microphone to you. thank you. >> hi. maggie, "politico." thank you for being here. i was interested in your remarks about the house stopping mayor de blasio from stopping that in new york. i am curious to see how would the house do in that role and -- >> don't think it was a correct reflection of my language. i said we're going to remain vigilant at at attempts to try and thwart the growth in public school choice and in education choice. and, you know, mayor de blasio's announced policies is one that's been reported to me are in conflict with the federal programs that are designed to help facilitate the growth in successful school

choice. there are moneys, there are programs designed specifically for that. and so if you have a district like new york, obviously i think the largest district in this country, and all of a sudden the policy of the city is no more growth in charter schools. in fact, we're going to be detrimental to that, to me is in direct conflict to federal programs that exist. so in my opinion, it's always been that the federal government, in terms of education, one of the roles is to disseminate information. like i said, where is the success and how can we build and share in that success? and so i would hope that i know that our committee under john kline's leadership is interested in helping facilitate more education options that will allow for more success in the country. and so that's why i'm so strong in saying that -- in feeling that i bleier that mayor de blasio's reported policies will

hurt kids and their families and they ought not go into effect. >> here. >> i'm mittsy with the naval postgraduate school. was listening to the story on health care that was at the press club this afternoon at 1:00 and one of the things that was so interesting about that was the whole subject was on collaboration. i wonder what kind of collaboration exists in the k-12 of learning from other schools or other cities, how do you promote that? i guess the other question i have is, why are people not in unions opposing this? >> well, first of all, mitzi, collaboration to me comes from the ability to exchange ideas and information. i mean, it's one of the reasons why i have made it a priority for me to go and see for myself

the difference that education choice can make in the lives of so many students. i think most of the cities on the top list there i've been to see what's going on. you know, when you're at a school, it's not about who's republican, who's democrat, who's liberal, who's conservative, it's about doing best for those kids. and that's why education in so many ways represents the answer to not only the kids' futures but the future of those communities, the future competitiveness of our country and, you know, ultimately as i indicated before, the future success in trying to lift folks out of poverty. this is it. education reform and success in education will ultimately allow someone to escape and lift themselves out of poverty. so if there's anything we

should be able to collaborate around, it is that. and so your question about, why would there be opposition if there weren't unions? i made the point, because i think it is change. it is change, and people who are protective of the status quo are maybe going to see it as a threat. but i have seen enough examples across the country where i know that all though change can be scary, it makes a real different for families and their kids, such a difference we should take a risk and go ahead and explore the change collaboratively. >> how do you make that happen? >> well, i mean, we are trying to help facilitate that on a bipartisan basis. again, i mentioned that secretary duncan has said and has demonstrated he's willing to work across the aisle, coming down to richmond to join me in a roundtable. we're going to continue to try and do those things. i know that chairman kline has continued to say, please, work with us.

we got to go and do a better job and i'm hopeful this year in 2014 of working together. and it's going to take the discipline to stay, you know what, we're going to disagree on some of these very big issues. but certainly we can agree on helping kids, and that's what i think the collaboration should be about and can be about. >> let me add that there's another forum that generates the same outcome as collaboration. that is competition. so you see, for example, houston independent school district, putting in place in the lower performing schools a management routine that looks very much like what successful charter schools are doing. so competition from successful charters has led them to change their regular schools in a way that rep lay indicates what seems to be successful practices. ere. >> jonathan palmer. earlier you talked about how

about pulling money out of unpopular schools in districts that have regulation for school choice. i was wondering what pulling money out of unpopular schools does for the children that's left in those schools when some rents don't want to send their kids to those particular schools and how putting more -- how having to close those schools and moving kids to -- like kids to more schools, like how that works out? >> again, what was the question i don't think i said, pulling moneys out of school -- >> i said that. [laughter] >> that's my question on that, particularly. >> since i said it, we won't leave leader cantor to explain. on a purr pupil basis there's -- on a per pupil basis there's no loss. but if parents by choice is fleeing schools and you let the per pupil expenditure double because they have the number of kids there but continue to see

the same appropriation, then it's the kids in the popular schools who are losing because they are not getting their fair share of the district's budget. so it allows the schools losing kids to be held harmless but it's not harmless to the families who are moving. >> all right. thank you. >> here. >> steven, department of education, institute of education sciences. just one quick question. pertaining to the -- you alluded to some federal legislation regarding regulation of education. i wanted to ask about the prospect of passing esea or the i.e.s., enabling statute, to both of you, the prospect of passing some of this egislation in the coming year?

>> well, again, i think there is -- there needs to be a two-way street. there needs to be action on the part of both houses, and the first thing that's got to happen is the senate has to act and, again, i know a lot of differences are going to be in that action versus action in the house. so half of it has started with the house passage. we're waiting. i do think it's important that that occur. i mean, it's an election year. i think that's something for everyone to rally around. an election year should be good education policy, education reform. >> the education science act re-authorization was very close to bipartisan agreement in the house. i think it fell apart over trivial matters and the fact there was bipartisan agreement on all matters of substance i think should be very encouraging for those of us who care about -- >> and we'll leave this event now. you can see it later on in our

bram schedule. couple votes ahead. we take you there live now on c-span. the vote incurs objection under clause 6 of rule 20. recorded votes on postponed questions will be taken later. for what purpose does the gentleman from pennsylvania seek recognition? >> madam speaker, i move to suspend the rules and pass the bill h.r. 3628, the transportation reports elimination act of 2013. the speaker pro tempore: the clerk will report the title of the bill. the clerk: union calendar number 217, h.r. 3628, a bill to eliminate certain unnecessary reporting requirements and consolidate or modify others and for other purposes. the speaker pro tempore: pursuant to the rule, the gentleman from pennsylvania, mr. shuster, and the gentlewoman from connecticut, ms. esty, each will control 20 minutes. the chair recognizes the gentleman from pennsylvania.

madam speaker, i yield myself such time as i may consume. the speaker pro tempore: the gentleman is recognized. the speaker pro tempore: the gentleman is recognized. mr. shuster: this bill modifies recording rerments of the executive branch agencies that falls within the jurisdiction of the committee on transportation and infrastructure. this bill does not reduce the congressional oversight or affect the agencies. instead, it rids the agencies of outdated reporting requirements that are no longer utilized or have been replaced by different methods. or information collecting. this enabling the agencies to concentrate on more oppressing aspects of their mission. . it modifies existing reporting requirements, bringing consistency across law and regulation, eliminating duplicative and wasteful efforts, making technical corrections and improving the ability of congress to conduct

effective overoversight. it makes several reporting requirements digital, resulting in reduced production and delivery costs, it exat the indicts delivery -- expedites delivery. it will be made publicly available, enhancing transparency. according to the c.b.o., this legislation could reduce the administrative cost of these agencies. this legislation is a basic good government fiscally sound bill that just makes sense. i urge my colleagues to support this bipartisan bill and i reserve the balance of my time. the speaker pro tempore: the gentleman from pennsylvania reserves. the gentlelady from connecticut is recognized. ms. esty: thank you, madam speaker. i yield myself such time as i may consume. the speaker pro tempore: the gentlelady is recognized. ms. esty: i rise here today in strong support of h.r. 3628, the transportation reports elimination act of 2013. the committee on transportation and infrastructure unanimously reported this bill by voice vote last month. the government performance and

results modernization act of 2010 requires the office of management and budget, the o.m.b., to publish a list of connelly mandated plans and reports -- congressly mandated plans and reports that it says is duplicative. they reported a list of 376 reports that are proposed for elimb nation or consolidation -- elimination or consolidation. the committee on transportation and infrastructure reviewed the list and agreed that some of these reports are indeed outdated or duplicative. h.r. 3628 is a bipartisan bill that eliminates, consolidates and modifies 27 congressionally mandated reports. madam speaker, this report will save taxpayer dollars while improving government efficiency and performance. the bill eliminates several reporting requirements, freeing up valuable staff resources for the affected agency to perform

more important oversighting requirements. and it will create greater consistency across statutes and regulations. finally, the bill allows several reports to be posted on the agency's website and not formally submitted to congress, saving time and taxpayer dollars. this process will further save taxpayer dollars by reducing production and delivery of weighty government reports. additionally, taxpayers will also benefit from information posted in a more timely and interactive format, increasing transparency and ease of use. in is a bipartisan bill for smarter, cheaper, more transparent government. i urge my colleagues to join me in supporting h.r. 3628, and i reserve the balance of my time. the speaker pro tempore: the gentlelady from connecticut reserves the balance of her time. and the gentleman from pennsylvania is recognized. mr. shuster: i thank you, madam speaker. again, i appreciate my

colleague's support on this and as mentioned, this was reported out of the committee on transportation and infrastructure unanimously. but i also want to point out a couple of these reports just to make -- drive home the point how unnecessary these -- some of these reports are and were and that's why we're eliminating them. for instance, in the department of transportation, the air traffic services committee report. the air traffic services committee report has not met for more than two years. as such, the annual report has been submitted to congress in -- no report has been submitted to congress during that time. since the recreation in 2003, many other committees and boards have created -- have created the report and is no longer needed. that for instance is one. the pipeline safety information grants to communities annual report. sounds important. we recommended the elimination by o.m.b. this information is available online. so it's more timely for

americans to be able to get online and review these types -- this type of report. pilot program for innovative finance of air traffic control equipment annual report. the report was required to supplement innovative air traffic control systems being tested nine years ago. the tests have long since been completed and therefore there is no report that is required. again, the list goes on and on. aircraft engines to reduce noise level annual reports, requires an annual report on new technologies to decrease aircraft noise levels. since then the f.a.a. has updated noise requirements to meet stage 4 standards. therefore, again, this report is no longer required. and, again, we go through and there are 27 in total that we have eliminated. we don't have -- haven't been quantified as to how much savings but there certainly is going to be hundreds of thousands if not millions of dollars saved by eliminating

these reports. as i said, many of these reports you can get online now and see them quickly and efficiently and the most up-to-date reporting. with that i reserve the balance of my time. the speaker pro tempore: the gentleman from pennsylvania reserves the balance of his time. and the gentlelady from connecticut is recognized. ms. esty: thank you, madam speaker. again, this is one of those all-too-rare instances where we have bipartisan support where we can save money, improve efficiency and have greater transparency and accessibility to taxpayers. i wanted to flag just a couple of items that illustrate this point. we are going to be taking up the surface transportation bill, a very important bill coming up later this year. well, we have some of the reports related to that bill have to do with the infrastructure investment need. that report has always come at the wrong time. it's come after we've always -- already looked at the highway transportation bill. so this bill, among other things, aligns the reports to be available and ready for

congress, ready for stakeholders, ready for the public to evaluate at the time we are considering important legislation on behalf of the american people. so again this is an important initiative. i would urge not only support for what we have done under chairman shuster's excellent leadership but for other committees in congress to join us in reviewing what the g.a.o. has provided at our request, to review those list of agency reports and to find other ways we can save money, expedite delivery of important information both to congress to facilitate our oversight as well as make available to the public to ensure we are spending taxpayer dollars in the most effective way possible. again, i want to thank the chairman for his leadership on this and many other initiatives. it's a wonderful committee. we have important work to do, and this will help us get that work done. thank you, madam speaker. . mr. shuster: i'm ready to close. if the gentlelady is ready to yield back then i'll close.

the speaker pro tempore: the gentleman reserves. the gentlelady is recognized. ms. esty: i yield back the balance of my time. the speaker pro tempore: the gentlelady from connecticut yields back the balance of her time and the gentleman from pennsylvania is recognized. mr. shuster: thank you, madam speaker. i thank the gentlelady from kentucky and her kind words and -- connecticut and her kind words and all her hard work on the committee. we've been working very hard in a bipartisan manner. there are a lot of -- there aren't many things in this congress that really bring people together but when it comes to transportation and infrastructure, that certainly is one of them and we'll continue to work together. again, this bill is a good government bill. i urge all my colleagues to vote yes on h.r. 3628, which again eliminates the reports. good government, saves money, increases transparency and with that i yield back the balance of my time. the speaker pro tempore: the gentleman from pennsylvania yields back the balance of his time. the question is will the house suspend the rules and pass the bill, h.r. 3628. those in favor say aye. those opposed, no.

in the opinion of the chair, 2/3 of those voting having responded in the affirmative -- mr. shuster: madam speaker. with that i -- the speaker pro tempore: 2/3 of those voting having responded in the affirmative, if the gentleman would yield -- the gentleman from pennsylvania is recognized. mr. shuster: madam speaker, i ask for the yeas and nays. the speaker pro tempore: the yeas and nays are requested. all those in favor of taking this vote by the yeas and nays will rise and remain standing until counted. a sufficient number having arisen, the yeas and nays are ordered. members will record their votes by electronic device. -- pursuant to clause 8 of rule 20, further proceedings on this otion will be postponed. pursuant to clause 8 of rule 20 , proceedings will resume on motions to suspend the rules previously postponed. votes will be taken in the following order. h.r. 724 by the yeas and nays, .r. 3527 by the yeas and nays,

h.r. 3628 by the yeas and nays. the first electronic vote will be conducted as a 15-minute vote. remaining electronic votes will be take conducted as five-minute votes. the unfinished business is the vote on the motion of the gentleman from ohio, mr. latta, to suspend the rules and pass h.r. 724 on which the yeas and nays are ordered. the clerk will report the title of the bill. the clerk: union calendar number 238, h.r. 724, a bill to amend the clean air act to remove the requirement for dealer certification of new light-duty motor vehicles. the speaker pro tempore: the question is, will the house suspend the rules and pass the bill. members will record their votes by electronic device. this is a 15-minute vote. [captioning made possible by the national captioning

institute, inc., in cooperation with the united states house of representatives. any use of the closed-captioned coverage of the house proceedings for political or commercial purposes is expressly prohibited by the u.s. house of representatives.]

the speaker pro tempore: on this vote the yeas are 405, the nays are no. 2/3 of those voting having responded in the affirmative, the rules are suspended, the bill is passed and without objection the motion to reconsider is laid on the table. the speaker: the house will be nort. -- in order. the house will be in order. members will please take their seats.

the chair lays before the house a communication. cloipt honorable the speaker, use of representatives, sir, i have a certificate of election received from the honorable robert bentley, governor of alabama, and the honorable jim bennett, secretary of state of alabama, indicating that at this special election held on december 17, 2013, the honorable bradley byrne was duly elected representative in congress for the first congressional district, state of alabama, signed, sincerely, karen l. haas, clerk. the speaker: the house will be n order.

will representative-elect byrne and the members of the alabama delegation present themselves in the well of the house. and will all members please ise. the gentleman will raise his right hand. do you solemnly swear that will you support and defend the constitution of the united states against all enemies, foreign and domestic, that you will bear truth faith and allegiance to the same, that you take this obligation freely without any mental reservation or purpose and will you well and faithfully discharge the duties of the office on which you are about to enter, so help you god? mr. bryne: i do. the speaker: congratulations. you're now a member of the 13th congress.

without objection, the gentleman from alabama, mr. bachus, is recognized for one minute. mr. bachus: thank you, mr. speaker. we welcome bradley byrne as the newest member of the alabama delegation. we also welcome his wife, rebecca, who's in the balcony with his four children, and ck, and collin athleen and laura. bradley asked me, and i think all the members will identify with him, do you ever get over

the thrill of walking in this chamber? and the answer is no, you never do. let me say this, we like bradley. the delegation. i think you know how important that is. he has a wonderful wife. we're very excited about him being here. he brings a wealth of understanding. he comes from an area with natural resources, very important in armed services. he served as chancellor of our two-year college system. he can bring some insight to educational reform. he succeeds our -- one of our closest friends, all of us, on both sides, joe bonner, and although we miss joe, we welcome bradley. that makes up for some of the loss of joe. and i think you're going to get where you know and appreciate this gentleman that has joined

us today. t this time i yield. ms. sewell: mr. speaker, i rise today to welcome newly elected representative bradley byrne. to the 113th congress. as a lawyer, former alabama state senator, and as a former chancellor of alabama's two-year college system, bradley has a proven record as a principled servant leader. i know bradley as a man of strong character who has dedicated his public life strengthening the community and improving our state. i believe bradley will ably follow in the tradition of his predecessors in proudly representing alabama's first congressional district. i look forward to working with bradley, especially on our shared constituents in clark county. recently a local reporter asked the delegation to give bradley some advice. the best advice that i could give you as you embark upon this special journey is to

always put your constituents first. the oath you took today is a very sacred one. you join a body that has awesome responsibility and that responsibility is neither republican nor democrat. the issues that we talk about are for all americans. i look forward to working with you and i know that given your record of hard work and your willingness to work across the aisle, you that will be an amazing addition to the alabama elegation and i welcome you. >> thank you. mr. speaker, it is my great privilege to represent the good and hardworking people of southwest alabama. mr. bryne: to my family, my wife of 33 years, rebecca, my children, patrick, kathleen, laura and collin, i thank you for your love and your support. to the people of the first district of alabama, i promise day i will work hard every

to serve you and build upon the trust that you have placed in me to represent you in our nation's capitol. to the members of this house, i'm ready to roll up my shirt sleeves and work with you as a problemsolver, not a problem maker. as a workhorse, not a show horse. this is a great country, mr. speaker, but over the last several years we have failed to live up to that greatness. i come to this house ready to work together with each of you to find solutions that will make this country truly great again. i ask god's blessings and wisdom as i embark on this new endeavor in this house for the people of my district. thank you again, mr. speaker, for the opportunity to make these brief remarks. now it's time for me to get to work. yield back.

the speaker: the chair announces to the house that in light of the administration of the oath of office to the gentleman from alabama, the whole number of the house is now 433. without objection, five-minute votes will continue. the unfinished business is the vote on the motion of the gentleman from pennsylvania, mr. pitts, to suspend the rules and pass h.r. 3527 as amended on which the yeas and nays are ordered. the clerk will report the title. the clerk: h.r. 3527, a bill to amend the public health service act to re-authorize the poison center national toll free number, national media campaign

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

the speaker: on this vote the

yeas are 388, the nays are 18. 2/3 having responded in the affirmative, the rules are suspended, the bill is passed, and without objection the motion to reconsider is laid on the table. the house will be in order. members will please take their seats. he house will be in order. members will please take a seat.

the speaker: for what purpose does the gentleman from arizona rise mr. barber: a request to speak out of order for one minute. the speaker: without objection. mr. barber: thank you, mr. speaker. i stand here with my colleagues from the arizona delegation, both senate and house, and with very close friends of congresswoman gabrielle giffords, to remember a tragic event that took place three years ago today. 10:10 ry 8, 2011, at , 19 in just 19.6 seconds people, including congresswoman giffords and myself, were shot during a congress on the corner in tucson, arizona. this event was democracy in action. a member of this body, the

people's house, was meeting one-on-one with her constituents. six wonderful people died that day, including my friend, gabe zimmerman, my go-to guy on the congresswoman's staff. but you know, tucson and southern arizona have definitely not been defined by that terrible act. but rin stead we are defined by how our community responded. he compassion, the love, the prayers and the good will that point of order out has helped all of us heal our broken hearts and bring some good out of that horrific day. organizations have been established to help with the educational needs of children to prevent bullying and to reduce the stigma of mental

illness and improve those services. and congresswoman giffords continues her remarkable recovery, her perseverance and determination give hope to others and she's a true inspiration to the country and to the world. you might have noted that earlier today she jumped out of n airplane and took a tanden dive. this woman's reville yens has no bounds. -- resilience has no bounds. sadly within the last three year other communities have been struck by similar senseless acts of violence. in the most fitting memorial would be to take action to prevent another such tragedy. as a shooting survivor, a grandfather, a member of congress, i am determined to do so and i know that many others in this body and in the senate have the same aspiration.

let us never forget the six people who died that fateful day. 9-year-old christina taylor reen, dorothy morris, u.s. district judge john rolle, phyllis schneck, dorwin stoddard and my friend and colleague, gabe zimmerman. mr. speaker, i'd now like to ask that the house have a moment of silence in remembrance of these good people. the speaker: the members will rise and reserve a moment of silence.

the speaker: without objection, five-minute voting will continue. the unfinished business is the vote on the motion from the gentleman from pennsylvania, mr. shuster, to suspend the rules and pass h.r. 3628, on which the yeas and nays were ordered. the clerk will report the title of the bill. the clerk: union calendar number 217, h.r. 3628, a bill to eliminate certain unnecessary reporting requirements and consolidate or modify others and for other purposes. the speaker: the question is will the house suspend the rules and pass the bill. members will record their votes by electronic device. this is a five-minute vote. [captioning made possible by the national captioning institute, inc., in cooperation with the united states house of representatives. any use of the closed-captioned coverage of the house proceedings for political or commercial purposes is expressly prohibited by the u.s. house of representatives.]

the speaker pro tempore: on this vote the yeas are 406, the nays are zero. 2/3 of those voting having responded in the affirmative, the rules are suspended, the bill is passed and, without objection, the motion to

reconsider is laid on the table. for what purpose does the ntlewoman from washington -- >> mr. speaker, i send to the desk a privileged resolution and ask for its immediate consideration in the house. the speaker pro tempore: the clerk will report the resolution. the clerk: house resolution 453, resolved, that the following named member be and is hereby elected to the following standing committees of the house of representatives . committee on armed services the speaker pro tempore: without objection, the resolution is agreed to and the motion to reconsider is laid on the table. for what purpose does the gentleman from california? >> mr. speaker, by direction of the democratic caucus, i offer a privileged resolution and ask

for its immediate consideration. the speaker pro tempore: the clerk will report the resolution. the clerk: house resolution 454,s remain solved, that the following named member be and is hereby elected to the following standing committee of the house of representatives. one, committee on natural resources, ms. clark of massachusetts. the speaker pro tempore: without objection, the resolution is agreed to and the motion to reconsider is laid on the table. the chair lays before the house a communication. the clerk: the honorable the speaker, house of representatives, sir, i hereby tender my resignation from the commission of the office of congressional ethics. my own advanced age and the health of mrs. frensle and myself are reason enough, but there's also a real need to refresh the commission on a financing basis. it has been a -- continuing

basis it. has been a pleasure and privilege to serve the house and to work with the chairmen and other members of the commission and with its staff. i did not need another job, but i was and am convinced that once the o.c.e. has made a positive contribution to the house's ethics processes. i thank you both for your service to the republic and wish you continued success. signed, bill frens -- frenzel. the speaker pro tempore: the chair lays before the house a communication. the clerk: the honorable, -- the honorable the speaker, house of representatives, sir, i am resigning from the o.c.e. it is with great regrets and only because i accepted as a -- a position as a member of the board of amtrak that i am asking to be relieved. the additional travel to the district for -- to meeting has become extremely difficult, particularly because of my other responsibilities. i have really enjoyed working with the members of the o.c.e. and the staff. i feel very proud of the

accomplishments of the o.c.e. and its positive contribution to the house of representatives. i have been honored to have had this opportunity to serve. signed, yours truly, yvonne b. burke. the speaker pro tempore: the chair announces the speaker's appointment, pursuant to section 4-d of house resolution 5, 113th congress, and the order of the house of january 3, 2013, of the following individuals to serve on the governing board of the office of congressional ethics. the clerk: nominated by the speaker with the concurrence of the minority leader. mrs. judy biggert, illinois, alternate for the remainder of the term of mr. bill frenzel, nominated by the minority leader with the concurrence of the speaker, brigadier general, retired, belinda pinckney, virginia, for the remainder of the term of mrs. yvonne burke.

the speaker pro tempore: the chair will now entertain requests for one-minute speeches. for what purpose does the gentleman from minnesota seek recognition? without objection, the gentleman is recognized for one minute. mr. paulsen: mr. speaker, i rise to congratulate eden prairie wrestling coach, scott davis, on his 1,000th coaching victory. as they defeated columbia heights last month at eden prairie high school. davis' 1,000th victory gives him the most wins of any high school wrestling coach in the united states. while this is davis' first year coaching at eden prairie, he has coached 35 different seasons at prep wrestle, including 20 years at a high school where he coached two state championship teams. with a group of his friends attending the match at eden prairie, he admitted to feeling a little more pressure than usual, but the eden prairie team easily delivered the

milestone victory. while coach davis said he never set a specific goal for victories, he did say that reaching the 1,000th victory was a special accomplishment. so congratulations to coach davis for accomplishing this impressive feat and also thank you for continuing to dedicate yourself to helping student athletes with your time and your talent and i yield back. the speaker pro tempore: for what purpose does the gentleman rom illinois seek recognition? without objection, the gentleman is recognized for one minute. >> mr. speaker, i rise today to speak on behalf of thousands might have constituents who have had an essential safety net pulled out from under them because congress has failed to take action. to extend emergency unemployment insurance. on december 28, 1.3 million nationwide and over 80,000 in my home state of illinois lost unemployment insurance. our economy is still recovering from the worst recession since the great depression and now is

not the time to cut off this important safety net. i have heard from hundreds of my constituentses about this, including yvonne, a mother of five from aurora, illinois. mr. foster: and child she has worked all of her life, she's now unemployed. without unemployment insurance, she will no longer have a car or any of the resources she needs to look for work and to get her career back on track. unemployment insurance is not a handout, it is a hand up. and unemployment insurance is for workers who have lost their jobs through no fault of their own and who need a lifeline while they look for work. in addition to leaving families without a safety net, failing to extend unemployment insurance is simply bad economic policy. hank you and i yield back. the speaker pro tempore: for what purpose does the gentlelady from connecticut seek recognition? without objection, the gentlewoman is recognized for one minute.

ms. delauro: i rise to voice my objection to the misguided priorities that are taking shape in the conference farm bill. more and more and despite payment reforms, that were included in both the house and senate legislation, it sounds like this farm bill plans to steal food from the poor to help pay crop subsidies to the rich. unbelievably on the 50th anniversary of the war on poverty, it's being reported that the farm bill currently being negotiated in conference will include cuts of roughly $8.5 billion to food stamps, denying critical food aid to over 800,000 households. some of the same conferees who support these cuts are looking to strip out payment limits that are designed to stop the subsidizing of millionaire and billionaire farmers, a loophole they are re-opening that was closed already. they're going to take food from the hungry, children, seniors, veterans and workers, they're going to go out of their way to ensure that the wealthiest

agribusinesses in america are getting handouts. allowing poor americans to starve so that we can subsidize rich corporations is not why we are here. it is cruel, it is corrupt, it's immoral and we have to do better for the people that we represent. the speaker pro tempore: for what purpose does the gentleman rom nevada seek recognition? without objection, the gentleman is recognized for one minute. mr. horsford: mr. speaker, 50 years ago today president johnson declared a war on poverty. since that day, our country has fought to increase access to resources for those struggling to make ends meet. poverty has declined by more than 1/3 since 1967. that's because historically we've had strong bipartisan support for programs like social security and medicare and tax policies like the earned income tax credit.

but the war on poverty is not over. in 2012 there were 49.7 million americans living in poverty, including 13.4 million of our children. we cannot break our promise to fight poverty. that's why this congress needs to do everything to strengthen these programs and lift people out of poverty. tax credits for struggling families reduces the poverty rate in 2012 by three points. snap helped to reduce poverty by three points. and unemployment insurance reduces poverty as well and it's why we need to extend it. our commitment to these programs must not waiver. let us work together to really end the war on poverty now. the speaker pro tempore: for what purpose does the gentlelady from new hampshire eeknition?

without objection, the gentlewoman is recognized red for one minute. -- is recognized for one minute. >> thank you, mr. speaker fment. today i rise in strong support of the compensation program. because congress failed to act this vital program expired on december 28 of last year. ms. kuster: just three days after christmas, 1.3 million americans, including over 1,000 granite staters were cut off from their benefits. each week of congressional inaction, as many as 150 additional granite staters will lose access to benefits. this compensation provides a critical lifeline to granite staters and other americans who are struggling to find work. this includes my constituent, lois little, a teacher who wrote to me. at end of the last school year,

lois lost her job after teaching for 29 years because of falling enrollment in her rural school district. over the last few months she has applied to over 100 jobs, without any luck. her savings has been exhausted. unemployment benefits are now her only source of income. and she is worried about whether she can keep her home. let's come together and give lois a chance. let's renew emergency unemployment compensation today. thank you. the speaker pro tempore: for what purpose does the gentleman from texas seek recognition? >> unanimous consent to address the house for one minute, revise and extend my remarks. the speaker pro tempore: without objection, the gentleman is recognized for one minute. >> mr. speaker, i rise to recognize the success and legacy of the war on poverty. the war on poverty proposed 50 years ago today in this chamber by then president and fellow texan, lyndon johnson, paved the way toward the enactsment of many of our nation's most popular and significant federal programs.

mr. green: including medicare, medicaid, food stamps, head start. these programs, along with social security, unemployment insurance and now the affordable care act, form america's social safety net which has protected millions of our nation's children, working adults and earlierly from falling into poverty. less that he -- elderly from falling into poverty. less than two weeks ago, 1.3 million americans, including 65,000 texans saw their unemployment insurance disappear. this number will grow to over three million in the coming months if action is not taken. this vital lifeline is essential for millions of our fellow americans who are out of work and struggling to make ends meet. the 50th anniversary of president johnson's speech is a perfect opportunity to -- for congress to show their support for the less fortunate. i call on this chamber to bring legislation to renew emergency unemployment today. thank you, mr. speaker, and i yield back the balance of my time. the speaker pro tempore: for what purpose does the gentleman from minnesota seek recognition? without objection, the gentleman is recognized for one minute.

mr. ellison: mr. speaker, when lindsen baines johnson came before this house -- lyndon baines johnson came before this house and this nation to say that the united states, the richest country in the history of the world, should not have people living in squalor and in poverty, shouldn't have seniors eating dog food, shouldn't have poor kids living with no chance of a better life, he did what this nation really is all about, he really lived up to the true meaning of liberty and justice for all and he made those words real when for so many years they had not been real. . and yet those programs that lift sod many americans out of poverty, that war on poverty that lifted so many out and gai so many a chance, after about 10 years there became a war on the war on poverty. the latest battle in the war on the war on poverty took place on december 28, 2013, when this house refused to extend

unemployment insurance for 1.3 million americans. this is no way to uphold the great legacy of the war on poverty. let's patsdz unemployment insurance. let's do it now. the speaker pro tempore: the chair lays before the house the following personal requests. the clerk: leaves of absence requested for mr. farr of california for today, ms. gabbert of haye for -- ms. gabard of hawaii for today, and for the balance of the week. the speaker pro tempore: without objection, the requests are granted. under the speaker's announced policy of january 3, 2013, the gentlewoman from california, ms. lee, is recognized for 60 minutes as the designee of the minority leader.

ms. lee: thank you very much, mr. speaker. i rise today with many members o mark president lyndon baynes johns' 1964, -- lyndon baines johnson's 1964 state of the union address. and e thank sten you hoyer congresswoman marcia fudge for leading our agenda. this is truly a historic day in our fight to provide every american with a pathway out of verty this morning we were joined here at the capitol by linda johnson rob, the daughter of president lyndon johnson, to mark the anniversary of the speech in which he declared the war on poverty. at the time of the speech the supplemental poverty rate was

26%. 36% of low-income households struggled with food insecurity and more than a third of american seniors were living in poverty. let me tell you, president johnson got it. he recognized in his speech that poverty is a national problem, requiring national organization and support. he knew that in a great society, it is absolutely essential that we prioritize investments that lift millions out of poverty. as a result of his vision, his daughter reminded us this morning of the bipartisan and bicameral effort that followed. benchmark anti-poverty legislation passed during the johnson administration, including -- and i want to remind everyone of these major initiatives that have significantly changed the lives of millions of americans -- the civil rights act, the urban mass transportation act, the criminal justice act, the food stamp act, the older americans act, social security amendment, the voting

rights act, the housing and urban development act, the public works and economic development act. the department of housing and urban development act. the amendment to the immigration and nationality act. the higher education act, the child nutrition act, the child protection act and the national school lunch act, in addition to head start, job corps, of course food stamps, now known as snap, medicare, medicaid and social security. the result of these policies and programs are undeniable. the poverty rate was cut nearly in half by the mid 1970's. they even had a personal impact on many of us here. personal impact on me, providing a critical bridge over troubled water. when i was a single mother in the 1970's, trying to raise two boys and go to college. i'm forever grateful to the american people wering if -- for being there for me when i needed them. we know that today, 50 years later, these critical anti-poverty problems --

programs continue to provide support for vulnerable americans and people living on the edge. today the nation's supplemental poverty rate is down to 16%, well below what it was in 1964. the programs put in place after the war on poverty work. they create economic security, return people to their dignity and povide opportunities for americans to lift themselves out of poverty. according to a report released by the center for american progress yesterday, without the safety net initiated as part of the war on poverty, poverty rates today would be nearly double what they currently are. i'd like to request unanimous consent, mr. speaker, to insert this report into the record. the speaker pro tempore: without objection, so ordered. ms. lee: let me give you an example. snap lifted five million people out of poverty in 2012 alone and according to a new report by the white house released yesterday, unemployment benefits reduced poverty by nearly 1% in 2012

alone. without social security nearly half our nation's seniors would live in poverty. since 2008, unemployment insurance has kept 11 million people out of poverty, including 2.5 million children and adults in 2012. we're going to talk about not only the history this evening but the challenges ahead. i would like now to ask congresswoman -- to yield to congresswoman yvette clarke from new york to speak about many of the challenges which remain in addition to a historical perspective on the war on poverty. thank you again. ms. clarke: i thank the gentlelady for yielding. five decades after president johnson declares a war on poverty, economic inequality is pervasive in our society. and our work to reduce substantial disparities in income and wealth must continue. but we must not forget that the war on poverty has and will

continue to improve the lives of millions of americans. for who among us would tell a senior citizen that medicare was a failure? or tell the parents of a child who attends preschool under head start that that program doesn't work? who among us would tell families who had access to desperately needed and often life-saving health care as a result of medicaid that that program was not worth the cost? mr. speaker, our work has not yet been completed. in december, we return home to share the holiday season with our families, to gather at the dinner table and to exchange gifts. however, millions of americans were not as fortunate because congress returned home without extending unemployment benefits to 1.3 million americans, not including the millions of people relying on them in their families. if unemployment benefits are not extended, approximately five

million americans are expected to lose emergency unemployment benefits over the next 12 months and of that number, 383,000 are new yorkers. additionally the lapse of unemployment benefits is likely to result in an increase in demand for the supplemental nutrition assistance program known as snap. this is occurring at a time when the republicans are contemplating making $40 billion in cuts to nutrition assistance. already, three million -- already 3,185,000 new yorkers are dealing with the impact of a snap benefits cut that happened this past november due to an expiration of funding made available under the american recovery act. this is unfair. this is unjust. it makes no sense and more importantly, it does not help americans regain their economic footing. but we have the ability to correct this mistake by extending unemployment benefits

and preventing further cuts to snap. congress can affirm the common priority that we share as a nation and work together to make them a reality. we as a congress must continue to work together to end poverty in america and having said that, i yield back to the gentlelady and in remembrance of president johnson's 50 years war on poverty, we need to take up the battle once again. ms. lee: thank you. let me now yield to the gentleman from north carolina, ongressman g.k. butterfield. mr. butterfield: i thank the gentlelady for yielding time. thank you very much, ms. lee, for your passion and extraordinary work on the issue of poverty and related causes. thank you so much. mr. speaker, 50 years ago, president lyndon b. johnson made a very bolt pronouncement. he declared a national war on poverty. president johnson helped pave

the way for so many low income families and i am proud today to recognize his immeasurable contributions to the battle against poverty. i understand that president johnson's daughter is still on capitol hill, she visited with the congressional black caucus today, and i just want to publicly thank her and thank the johnson family for their contribution to america. just last year, we commemorated the 50th anniversary of the march on washington and dr. martin luther king's historic speech imploring all americans to aspire toward a society of equality and acceptance. dr. king's speech illustrated the racial realities faced by people of color since before even the civil war. in 1964, president johnson delivered a historic state of the union address right in this chamber that exposed the tough racial inequalities present in the 1960's. he gave voice to the poor by contrasting the stark economic differences between the wealthy

and the poor and inspired a series of transformative laws including the civil rights act and the economic opportunity act. those laws, mr. speaker, established the first federal framework to combat the racial and economic and educational and even employment inequities that were pervasive in our society. the landmark legislation enacted during the johnson administration built upon the principles of the declaration of independence, the emancipation proclamation, new deal, and the civil rights movement. the work begun by president johnson more than half a century ago continues today with no less uveragetcy while national -- urgency. while national poverty metrics have improved since the war on poverty began, income inequality is still a major problem today and pockets of persistent poverty remain all across our country. in my congressional district, one in four people i represent, including 36% of our children, live at or below the poverty

level. income inequality in america is getting worse. i want to say that again for emphasis, income inequality in america is getting worse, not better. and the gap between the haves and have nots continues to widen. the poverty rate now is the highest it's been since 1994 and in some parts of my district, median household incomes have dropped since the year 2000. this is a fitting week to recognize the anniversary of the war on poverty as the senate considers extending the unemployment insurance for three months or more. more than 170,000 unemployed north carolinians are considered long-term unemployed and have been searching for work for more than 26 weeks. last year, north carolina gnchor pat mccory dealt a devastating blow to the long-term unemployed by reducing state unemployment benefits which caused the federal emergency unemployment compensation program to dissolve

in our state. the governor made this decision knowing its harmful impacts making north carolina the only state in the country to end emergency jobless benefits for its citizens. that decision forfeited $780 million in urgently needed federal benefits for long-term unemployed north carolinians and cost our state $1.5 billion in economic activity. we must stand up against those like the governor who seek to disenfranchise the less fortunate by continuing president johnson's work by extending emergency unemployment insurance and other critical programs that help families through difficult times. we cannot afford to turn a blind you to those who are most in need. we are not that type of country. again, ms. lee, thank you for your passion, thank you for yielding time, at this time, i yield back. ms. lee: thank you very much. now i'd like to yield to the -- to our democratic whip, steny

hoyer, whose democratic whip's task force on income opportunity. thank you for being here. mr. hoyer: i thank the gentlelady for taking this time and i thank the gentlelady even more for taking the time and focus and being indefatigable in making sure the richest nation on the face of the earth focuses on the least of these in our country. i thank her for her leader hipp. i'm proud she's working on the task force on poverty, income inequality, and opportunity and chairing that effort for our caucus. she is doing an extraordinary job. it is time, however, that all of us continue to do an extraordinary job. when president johnson stood in this chamber, at that rostrum, mr. speaker, on january 8, 1964, he declared an unconditional war on poverty in america.

that's been said so many times today. he launched a legislative agenda that led to the creation of medicare, medicaid, the elementary and secondary education act, and nutrition assistance for those at risk of going hungry, particularly our children. today, thanks to that war on poverty, infant mortality has substantially decreased, childhood malnutrition has fallen significantly, and college graduations have risen. but that is not to declare victory. there is much yet to be done. the poverty rate for senior itizens in 1959 was 35%. today, it is 9%. thanks to the new deal and great society programs. food stamps continue to keep as

many as four million americans out of poverty. which is why it's so critical to provide robust snap funding in he farm bill, mr. speaker. 50 years, half a century after president johnson launched the war on poverty, as we take stock of the progress we have made, we must be candid in assessing the difficult challenges that remain before us. that is what congresswoman lee is bringing to our attention and to the attention of the country. following the great recession and with long-term unemployment higher than it was a few years ago, millions of our fellow americans are today teatering on the edge of poverty. while others still have yet to escape its grasp. in 2012, according to the center on budget and policy priorities, nearly 50 million people in america were poor.

in the richest land on the face of the earth. and more than one in five of those were children. states and local governments under pressure from reductions in federal funding for domestic programs are struggling to maintain the safety net. for those who have lost a job, fallen ill or are born into dire circumstances. as middle class families have strained under the difficult conditions of the recession, and its consequences, the lowest income americans have been forced to endure a severe lack of opportunities, to enter the middle class. we want to promote jobs, we want to make sure the middle class can succeed, support themselves and their families and have the kind of life that we dream of and promise as an american. but we also want to make sure that those who are not middle class can get into the middle

class. in his state of the union address in 1964, president johnson said this, and i quote, very often a lack of jobs and money is not the cause of poverty. but the symptom. the cause may lie deeper in our failure to give our fellow citizens a fair chance, to develop their own capacities, in a lack of education and training in a lack of medical care and housing, in a lack of decent communities in which to live and bring up their children. poverty is the result, not the cause. central to our ability to sustain the american dream is our responsibility to one another to make upward mobility possible. right now 1.4 million americans , right now, mr. speaker, are worrying about meeting their basic needs since emergency unemployment insurance was cut off on december 28 of last year

, three days after christmas, the season of giving. the season of caring. the season of thinking about those who were in need. every week that goes by, without turning this lifeline back on, we'll see another 72,000 americans lose their emergency income. congress has the ability to restore these benefits right now. and democrats, proud of our history leading the war on poverty, will continue to push and demand for that extension. democrats will keep fighting for a strong, secure and growing middle class. by working to raise the minimum wage, and i see my friend from maryland, mr. delaney in the back of the chame -- mr. delaney, in the back of the chamber. congressman delaney has been leading an effort in our state to make sure that we raise the minimum wage. making sure the affordable care act expands access to quality

health care as intended. we must also create a pathway to citizenship and opportunities for undocumented workers who are living in the shadows in poverty, as part of a comprehensive immigration reform. and we must be vigorous in enforcing our laws that prevent discrimination in housing, hiring and access to education. mr. speaker, if we are to make serious progress in the war on poverty in the years to come, it will have to be as a result of both parties working together, to prioritize economic opportunity and upward mobility. mr. speaker, i will say that there are republican leaders, and i applaud them for it, who are talking about and focusing on those in poverty, those who have little in our country. i applaud them for talking. but talk is not enough. we must invest in making sure that they can avail themselves of the promise of america.

not by telling the most vulnerable americans they'll have to fend for themselves, that their fellow citizens will not lend a helping hand during the time of need. i'm glad, mr. speaker, that president obama has chosen to make reducing economic inequality a focus in 2014. this, mr. speaker, ought to be our sacred charge. to carry on the work that president johnson and others began, without pause, until hunger, homelessness and economic insecurity in any form no longer endanger the promise of our nation. and i thank the gentlelady for her leadership and for yielding. and i yield back the bam of my time to her -- the balance of my time to her. ms. lee: thank you very much for that very pourlful message. let me now -- powerful message, mr. hoyer. let me now yield to representative danny davis from illinois who continues to remind us of the formerly

incarcerated individuals who have families and children living below the poverty line. mr. davis: thank you, mr. chairman. and i certainly want to thank the outstanding gentlewoman from california for yielding. and i'm pleased to join with my colleagues to celebrate the 50th anniversary of the war on poverty derks claired by president lind -- poverty, declared by president lyndon johnson, a historic moment in our nation's history, when he affirmed a national priority to support those in need. one of the reasons that i got involved and ran for public office was because of the war on poverty. and the programs it created. the war on poverty called for a citizen involvement and participation to strengthen america. as i got more involved and more engaged, the more aware i became of the difficulties faced by individuals, families and communities. ultimately i decided i would run for public office. proved on poverty has im

the lives of millions of low-income americans, through the creation of critical safety net programs such as the education act snints, medicare, medicaid, increased social security benefits, head start and legal assistance, investment in k-12 education, federal college aid and loans, permanent food stamp program, expanded housing assistance for low-income people, community health centers, mental health programs, and we could go on and on to talk about the programs. but the real reality is that we still have not fulfilled the dream of seriously reducing and eradicating poverty. so we must not only remember, we must not only talk, but we must act and one of the best ways to start is to provide

right now, right now resources for individuals who are unemployed. i thank the gentlewoman and yield back. ms. lee: thank you. let me yield to the gentlewoman from california, congresswoman susan davis, who i served with in the california leggeture, who continues to remind us that middle income individuals are worried at this point now, falling into the ranks of the poor. thank you for being here. mrs. davis: thank you. mr. speaker, i certainly want to thank my colleague, congresswoman lee, for this opportunity, and for really the privilege of working with her for so many years. today the 50th anniversary of the war on poverty reminds us all that more work must be done. and if i could relate on a personal level, i don't believe that i would have had an opportunity to continue my education without having been about to further that at the time of the war on poverty, as someone who wanted to go into social work, it certainly was

an opportunity for me to do that and to make a difference in that area. one of the most important steps that we can take is to make pre-k available to all american children. today only 69% of american 4-year-olds are enrolled in early childhood education programs. only 69%. you might be, you know, surprised to learn that that troubling statistic places us near the bottom, near the bottom in terms of access among ur advanced country of our piers. in the bottom -- peers. in the bottom. in our global economy that means many american children start behind, least when they can afford to. they just cannot make it beyond that. the stakes to address this

issue today have never been higher. over the last decade, we've learned that early childhood education makes a big difference. we've learned that the achievement gap begins before our kids even reach kindergarten. and we've learned that quality pre-k leads to better life outcomes, in school and careers and in personal health. the research indeed shows that children who attend preschool are more likely to graduate high school, earn higher pay and live more productive lives. and sadly, we're just not putting these lessons of the war on poverty when we began to address these issues, we are not putting these lessons into action. the argument for universal

pre-k is not just a lofty moral imperative that sounded good. no, it is good science and it is good economics. by some estimates, the return on investment is nearly seven to one. and that's why most economists agree that pre-k is a great investment, it is not just another expense. i know that parents throughout san diego and across our country just want their kids the very best start in life and we should be working together to make that happen. to make sure all our kids get a real chance to succeed and that, and that, mr. speaker, would be one gigantic step to elevate our children out of poverty. ms. lee: thank you very much for your leadership and for being here with us tonight,

congresswoman davis. i would like now to yield to the gentleman from new york, someone who has been a fighter and a warrior for many, many years and who continues to remind us of our moral obligation, our religious obligation, for many, to ensure that we continue this fight. in the war on poverty. mr. rangel. mr. rangel: thank you, madam chairman. i ask unanimous consent to revise and extend my remarks. let me first thank the gentlelady from california for carrying this torch during a time that it seems to be such a lack of sensitivity to the call. as with lyndon johnson, there was a concentration of those people who vote, that's the middle class. and somehow, even now, 50 years later, we have a lot of concerns and rightly so about the middle class, but somehow the poor have just been written off and the gentlelady from california and our minority leader together have reminded us that we have a basic

obligation here that if you want to take care of the country and our spiritual needs, the poor cannot be excluded. and so in listening more recently to the words that president johnson spoke in the joint session in 1964, it was really an act of courage to talk about something that to many people seemed to be embarrassed about. and the fact is that we had a national obligation to take care of the lesser of others -- of our brothers and sisters and today we can take for granted medicaid and medicare, the expansion of social security and centers for our children and earned income tax credits. all of that was done not as blacks and whites or north or southerners or democrats and republicans, but with the spirit that that was the part of the reason that we were sent to congress, to make this a stronger nation. and how moved so many people in the world was to hear the breath of fresh air coming from

the pope, not a message to catholics, but a message to the world in pointing out that we have a responsibility to guard, to thank -- god, to thank him or her for what has been given to us, but more importantly to follow those biblical guidelines to say that we have an obligation to think in terms of the lesser of our brothers and sisters. and so whether we're seeking water or clothes or fear from prisons or assistance during times of health, it seems to me that we have this political and we have this spiritual need. but finally i'd like to but finally, i would like to say to the the gentlelady and those listening, from an economics point of view and a security point of view this nation cannot survive with expansion of the oor, the poverty of the middle

class still being with them and the wealth ji just -- wealthy just accumulating wealth by standing by doing nothing. what made this country great are not the rich and the poor but those people who can hope to achieve for their children through education, through hard work, to achieve anything that is possible for humankind to do. and this is what built that nation and today it is frightening as we see the disparity between the very poor and the very wealthy, to see that even talks about it would have presidents and members of congress to be called socialists, even the pope, but the fact remains that unless we have people that have the ability to purchase, unless we have small businesses that are responsible for the jobs in this country, unless we have people manufacturing and providing goods and services, then we

don't have an economy. and so no matter which way you look at it from a political or economic point of view, if our see in s not going to terms of economic security, it can no longer be concerned with the national security and the leadership position we own in the world. let me thank the gentlelady for constantly reminding us that this isn't a one-day job we have to do. this isn't a kennedy-lyndon johnson-democrat-republican issue, this is something that the world is watching what we do with our own an hoping once we get our act together perhaps we could do more for the world. i yield back the balance of my time. ms. lee: i want to thank the gentleman for reminding us tonight of our moral obligation to the most vulnerable in our country. thank you.

how much time do i have remaining, mr. speaker? the speaker pro tempore: the gentlelady has 27 minutes. ms. lee: thank you very much. let me now yield to the gentlelady from connecticut, congresswoman delauro, whose subcommittee i serve on appropriations, labor, health, who continues to remind us on -- excuse me. let me ask representative duckworth to come forward from illinois. who will now speak on behalf, not only of her constituents but the entire country. she's come to congress, hit the ground running and continues to remind us of our veterans and the sacrifices that they have made and to ensure their economic security. so many live on food stamps, unfortunately, as we speak. thank you for being here. ms. duckworth: i thank the gentlelady. mr. speaker, lynn richards of elgin, illinois, a town in illinois that is well known for

manufacturing everything from elgin watches all the way to the elgin street sweeper still in use today, lynn richards of elgin, illinois, needs her unemployment insurance extended. in april she lost her manufacturing job of three year. she and her husband kept their family afloat with the help of unemployment insurance. and now, 10 months later, she's pregnant with her second child. as she said recently, i've been working since i was 20 years old. i've never had this much trouble getting a job in my life. aye applied to 200 places and i've gotten less than 10 calls and just a couple of interviews. no employer wants to hire someone who is pregnant. lynn is just one of 80,000 illinoisans who have lost their unemployment insurance. i understand what these families are facing. when i was a teenager, my father a combat veteran, was in his mid 50's and had worked since he enlisted in the marine corps at

16. he lost his job. my dad did everything he could to find work but was turned down again and again. my mother took in sewing and i took a minimum wage job to help make ends meet. eventually my dad got a job but federal assistance programs were there to help keep my family afloat. many americans want to find work but simply cannot. punishing these families by taking away unemployment benefits is a terrible mistake. the absence of unemployment insurance is jeopardizing the economic progress we are making. by removing the benefits to 80,000 illinois families, we are taking more than 25 million out of -- more than $25 million out of our economy every week. let's put partisanship aside and extend unemployment insurance now for our families and our businesses. i thank the gentlelady from california for her leadership on this issue and i yield back. ms. lee: thank you. now i yield to the gentlelady from connecticut, congresswoman delauro.

i thank the gentlelady for her leadership and her indefatigable pursuit of this cause and the focus of not just the caucus but of the country on the issue of poverty. 50 years ago today, president lyndon johnson stood right behind where i stand new, urged the congress to join him in working to end poverty in the united states he said to this body, and i quote, we have, in 1964, a unique opportunity and obligation to prove the success of our system trk disprove those cynics and critics at home and abroad who question our purpose and our competition. -- competence. if we fail, if we fritter and fumble away our opportunity in needless, senseless quarrels between democrats and republicans or between house and senate, or between congress and the administration, then history

will judge us harshly. but if we succeed if we can achieve these goals by forging in this country a great et sense of union, then and only then can we take full satisfaction in the state of the union. that opportunity and obligation to prove we can work together, to do everything we can to end poverty in america, remains with us in 2014. right now, we are failing that solemn obligation to the american people. for decades, slowly but surely, our efforts in fighting poverty have been making a different. if you include the social safety net that president johnson and later generations helped to construct the poverty rate fell 2012.6% in 1967 to 16% in this was achieved because in the past, we have always worked to ensure that a rising tide lifts all boats, that the gains of prosperity are felt broadly and that in tough times, americans

who fall behind have a chance to get back on their feet. but recently, we have seen this house majority choose to break this long-standing compact, to turn their bark on the most vulnerable americans. consider what they are trying to do to food stamps, our most important anti-hunger program. food tamp -- foot stamps helps to feed over 47 million americans, nearly half of whom are children. for decades, republicans and democrats worked together to pass a farm bill that does right by struggling americans. even while working to support our farmers. but even though 99% of food stamp recipients live below the poverty line, this majority severed food stamps from the farm bill. they tried to cut food stamps by $40 billion, meaning four million americans would be denied food. even the final conference bill will reportedly cut roughly $8.5 billion from the program, deny critical food aid to over

800,000 households and cutting this aid means kids can no longer concentrate in school because they are quite literalry starving. it means seniors getting sick and going to the hospital because they can no longer afford proper nourishment. take another example, look what's happening with unemployment insurance. in the past, as far back as the eisenhower administration, congress worked together to extend unemployment benefits when the jobless rate was in the % to 7% range. even though the unemployment rate remains above 7%, the house majority refused to extend these benefits. the benefits expired. that means 1.3 million american men and women have already lost their unemployment insurance, including 26,000 in my state of connecticut. many are people who had jobs, they lost them through no fault of their own and in this

difficult economy and even despite education, training and job experience, still cannot find a job. even as the stock market is at record levels, we are telling these americans, you are on your own. we are pulling up the ladder on them and closing the hatch. it's wrong. it's not what america is about. slashing these programs will hurt and deny our economic recovery. our top priority in this congress should be to do everything we can to create jobs, help workers, help families get back on their feet. that's the moral responsibility of good government. in the words of pope francis, we should all -- and we should all be, and i quote, working to eliminate the structural causes of poverty, to promote the integral development of the poor, this means education, access to health care and above all, employment. that is the greatest and the still unfinished cause that

lyndon johnson dedicated us to 50 years ago. this nation is watching, it is time for all of -- all of us to step up, work together and co-the right thing. -- and do the right thing. thank you and i thank the gentlelady for your focus on this critical issue. ms. lee: thank you so much, thank you for not only talking the talk but walking the walk every ingle -- single day. let me ask congressman delaney to come forward, thank you for being here with us today. -- tonight. mr. delaney: i want to thank the gentlelady for giving me time this afternoon and for her work on this issue. today marks the his tore exday, the 50-year anniversary of president johnson declaring a formal war on poverty. and on such a day, we must take note of the progress we have made and remind ourselves of the work that has to be done. across 50 years if you take into

account the effects of programs this government has put in place to target those on poverty, we have significantly reduced the rate of poverty. we have in particular reduced the rate of poverty for our seniors. these facts are first evidence of the notion that the government can make a difference against this problem. but we also know that more has to be done. 50 million americans live in poverty. including about a quarter of which are our children. our most vulnerable citizens. children who have their whole lifes in front of them and are struggling in poverty. we must make a difference against this and to do that we need to do three things. first we need to continue to fund the programs that are proven to make a difference in the lives of those living in poverty. like food stamps. like funding head start. second we need to raise the minimum wage in this country.

right now, in 2014, in the wealthiest country in the world, in many states, you work 40 hours a week and earn the minimum wage, you live below the poverty line that just doesn't pass the look yourself in the mirror test. the minimum wage has significantly, for decades, trailed the growth in our economy. we need to raise the minimum wage that will make a meaningful and impactful difference in the lives of those struggling in poverty. fenally we need to create jobs. jobs are the most direct way to lift people out of poverty and through a job, people have personal dignity. to make a difference in the jobs crisis in this country, we need to invest in education across the long-term, that will make a disproportionate difference in terms of the number of people living in poverty but in the short-term we need to do things to get people to work now, like investing in our infrastructure.

this is very important work for taos do, mr. speaker. i'll close by reflecting on some of the words of president johnson. he said this fight would not be short and easy. and he was right. we've been at this for 50 years. he also said no single weapon would suffice, and he was right about that as well. we need to be raising the minimum wage, we need to be investing in jobs, we need to be funding critical programs like food stamps and head start. and then he said, we must not rest until this war is done. and to honor the tens of millions of people who have lived unfortunately in poverty over the last 50 years and the tremendous number of people who have fought this battle and to live up to the standard of our maker, we must remit ourselves to this battle. thank you, mr. speaker. ms. lee: thank you very much. let me now yield to the representative, dan kildee from

michigan, my good friend who constantly throughout his life has been waging this war on poverty. thank you for being with us. mr. kildee: thank you and i thank the gentlelady from california, ms. lee, for her leadership and stewardship of this important obligation that we're here to commemorate. mr. speaker, it was 50 years ago today that president johnson stood at that podium right in front of us, and i can still conjure the images of that speech. of course these are images of black and white recordings of president johnson standing there and it reminds me of the special obligation that we are called to and that he articulate sod well half a century ago. . i was 5 years old when he gave that speech. i was sort of a precocious kid and really interested in our government and in politics and i followed it from a very young age. even that tender age of 5.

but i remember as a kid in the 1960's, in early 1970's going through school thinking that the great struggles, the civil rights struggle, the women's movement, this war on poverty were the big fights of our generations. and in some ways i almost felt that that point in time that a moment had passed me by. never imagining that when the time came so much -- so many years later i would have an opportunity to serve in congress that we're actually still fighting those same fights, that we're still engaged in that same struggle. 50 years later after president johnson's speech, in the wealthiest society ever imagined, we're still fighting this war on poverty. and in fact we're seeing recently growing dess parity, growing en-- disparity, growing

inequality in this country. we haven't yet gotten to the point where we're close, but we do continue that battle, the battle over unemployment insurance, for example, is part of that same fight. some in this body would choose to continue their crusade to cut that important program. we have to remind ourselves that 11 million -- just since 2008, 11 million americans have been saved from poverty because they're able to have that unemployment insurance available to keep them whole until they could find new meaningful, rewarding work. so instead of cutting these important programs, head start, our nutrition programs, the programs that actually change the trajectory of the lives of those who are struggling to find their way in our society, we ought to be doubling those investments, we ought to be making sure that no american

ever has to wonder if they fall blow that common floor of decency that we would all agree should be part of any civilized society. we should have a minimum wage in this country that guarantees that people who work full time don't live in poverty. 50 years later we've got a lot of work to do. and i heard the other day -- i'll close by saying this. i heard the other day a member of the other body make a comment that perhaps we ought to simply acknowledge that in this nation we have lost the war on poverty. when 50 years ago a quarter of our society was living in poverty and today that number is 16%, while we know we have a long way to go, we know that these programs actually do work. we have to ask ourselves, what kind of country, what kind of society do we want to be? and i think if we answer the question right, we will live up to the challenge that president

johnson laid down 50 years ago. i yield back. thank you. ms. lee: let me ask you, mr. speaker, how much time do we ave remaining? the speaker pro tempore: 17 minutes, the gentlelady has remaining. ms. lee: thank you. we have many members who still s to speak that lets us know who wants to speak. thank you for being with us. ms. meng: thank you for speaking up and advocating for so many who are voiceless. mr. speaker, i come before you today to commemorate the 50th anniversary of the war on poverty. our nation has had many successes over the last 50 years. medicaid, medicare, snap and pell grants are incredible programs that help our entire country.

however, even with these successful programs which deserve our recognition, this is not a time for celebration. after five decades, many would think that our congressional leaders were still committed to fighting poverty and reducing the gap between the haves and have nots. i would still think that we are committed to helping hardworking americans who have fallen on rough times and through no fault of their own. the war on poverty is far from over. instead of pressing the issue, we are retreating from it. 1.3 million americans just lost their unemployment insurance and are suffering from long-term joblessness. if we don't renew the programs, 383,000 new yorkers will lose access to benefits over the next 12 months. we would also be responsible for preventing an increase of g.d.p. by .2% and the blocking of 200,000 jobs.

for me, and i know for many in this chamber, inflicting avoidable pain on this country's unacceptable. with no political gimmicks, we must vote to renew unemployment insurance now. thank you and i yield back. ms. lee: thank you very much for yielding back. let me ask and yield now to congressman pete defazio from oregon who has some stories he'd like to tell about his constituents and what they're going through. mr. defazio: i thank the gentlelady. on the 50th anniversary, the republicans just got a little bit wrong. war on poverty, they thought it was the war for poverty as they are dismantling one by one the most important programs that help lift and keep people out of poverty like extended unemployment insurance. let me read a few subjects here. roseberg, oregon. 61-year-old woman working since she was 14 -- i don't know if it's my age but i'm having great difficulty finding a job. 62-year-old woman from gooszbay oregon and went back

to her old employer saying, are you hiring? are you serious. not this time of year. come back in the spring. unfortunately she can't make it to spring. eugene veteran, two-income veteran. since i have not been able to find a job, we're close to losing our house and declaring bankruptcy. i'm actively seeking employment every day. and then we go to springfield, oregon, my hometown. we have a woman whose son is in the army and she says, i can't find a job. i've been looking. i have to give notice to my landlord and become homeless. corvalilis, oregon, working since 17, last job he was there for 13 years but he can't find a job and he's going to be forced into homelessness. and then finally another gentleman from springfield, oregon. $330 a week wasn't much but it kept me from having go to food

banks and asking for help. we went before christmas, the food bank had run out of food. i have to decide now whether to buy medicine or food or heat my house. that's the legacy of the cruel cuts of these republicans. these are people, hardworking americans, lost their jobs through no fault of their own, they want to work, but if they fall into poverty they lose their home, they lose their self-service, their telephone, their car. how are they ever going to get a job? we need to help them now before they even fall more off the cliff. extend unemployment benefits today as a celebration that we as the american people do not tolerate poverty in this country. ms. lee: thank you for that very powerful statement and for sharing those stories. all of us have stories that are similar but thank you for your constituents' testimony. congresswoman marsha kaptur, i'd like to yield from ohio, privileged to serve with congresswoman kaptur on the appropriations committee who constantly speaks for the voiceless. thank you for being here.

ms. kaptur: congresswoman lee of oakland, thank you for raising consciousness of a nation again. and i rise to join my colleagues tonight in support of raising consciousness about how important the programs have been over the years to reduce poverty in our country since the half century-old effort of the war on poverty started by lyndon johnson, a democrat, who wanted to replace despair with opportunity and i would like to ask unanimous consent to place in the record an executive summary of the council of economic advisory dated january, 2014, that summarizes the great progress that has been made, poverty in our country declining by more than a third since 1967 because of important programs that democrats created -- social security, medicare, the earned income tax credit, unemployment compensation which is being tested as we speak here today. the speaker from ohio, where unemployment has gone up,

should bring up that bill to extend unemployment benefits that impacts millions of americans across our country. people who understand the value of work, they don't want any subsidy. they want a job. they want a job. the most important work we can do is to create jobs, but when they can't get a job, then to give them their earned benefits. what is great about this evening is i was thinking back to the 1960's. i was pretty young back then, but there was a book written by michael harington, "the other america" and for whatever reason, maybe because president kennedy was president, that book, what became almost like a small bible, and people read it and it raised their consciousness. i can remember president kennedy campaigning in the mines in west virginia and raising consciousness again about the conditions of miners and what they were enduring. it's important that we have that same kind of effort across our country to raise

consciousness about how important these programs are, for our children, for our seniors, for those who are out of work. and by working together we as a people really do make a difference. and so congresswoman lee, i want to thank you tonight for being part of that clairian call to raise consciousness of people who really care. the majority of americans really do. as they announce wall street get bigger and bigger bonus, they know there is a war on the middle class and so many americans are falling out of that middle class. they know something is wrong. they want us to champion jobs here in washington, d.c., and they want to make sure that safety net is there for them if they hit the skids. and so i just thank you so very much for doing this. i thank all of my colleagues who took the time tonight to be here and to issue a clairian call for consciousness, for jobs in this country, for extending unemployment benefits, for maintaining social security, for maintaining the earned income tax credit and making sure that

our vigilant efforts continue to eliminate poverty in this country. thank you and i yield my remaining time back. the speaker pro tempore: without objection, the gentlewoman's request is granted. the gentlewoman from california. ms. lee: thank you very much for that powerful statement, congresswoman kaptur. i'd like to yield to our assistant leader, my good friend, congressman clyburn, from the great state of south carolina who constantly and consistently talks about prioritizing and targeting resources to areas of need, to poor and low-income communities. thank you for being here. mr. clyburn: i thank the gentlelady for yielding me time. mr. speaker, when president johnson stood in this claim ber 50 years ago -- chamber 50 years ago and declared war on poverty, the richest country in the world had a poverty rate of 19%. president johnson cautioned us on that evening that the war on poverty would be a long one and

not an easy one. yet, nine years later, 1973, the poverty rate in this country had dropped to 11%. we were most definitely winning the war on poverty. unfortunately, after the initial success, many politicians found success running down the achievements the war on poverty had on many americans. politicians started scapegoating, calling out welfare queens, further narrative that the war on poverty was not worth fighting. yet, i can show you firsthand examples in my home state of south carolina where the war on poverty did in fact succeed. for example, medicare and medicaid both war on poverty

initiatives had made tremendous differences in the health security of older americans and those of modest means. in fact, at the time of the institution of medicare, the poverty rate among seniors was over 30%. today the poverty rate among seniors has dropped to beneath 10%. it's important to remember that a year after president johnson made that speech we passed the voting rights act of 1965. that to me was to empower poor people, to empower people of color, to go to the polls, get registered and vote to make their own statements as to how to fight the war on poverty. today we in the congressional black caucus have been calling

for our government to across the board what we did in our so-called stimulus bill and 10, 20, institute a 30 initiative to direct funds to targeted areas so that 10% of all this money can go into those communities where 20% of more of the population were locked beneath the poverty for the last 30 years. if we were begin to target these persistent poverty counties we would in fact eliminate poverty and we can see all of our people living in poverty get beneath the 10% that we think will be tolerable over the next 10 years. thank you so much for allowing me the time and i yield back. . ms. lee: thank you. let me yield to the the gentlewoman from texas, ms.

sheila jackson lee. how much time do we have remaining? the speaker pro tempore: one minute. ms. jackson lee: i thank the gentlelady for her leadership and we can begin to attack poverty in 2014 by extending the unemployment benefits for 1.3 million americans. but thank you president johnson as we honor the fight against the poverty that has encompassed so many americans. the war on poverty is a war to be won. we thank you for child nutrition, national school lunch, indian reservation, legal services. i served on the board of those services. i say to our colleagues, look at the red on these sheets, you will know that poverty does not belong to any one member. it be longs to all members. all states have individuals who

are living below the poverty line. it is time to continue the fight against poverty and to ensure through unemployment insurance, through job training, supplemental nutrition programs, through child care and head tart a vital, vital, vital transition opportunity for poor children. it is time to continue that fight. and it is our pledge along with legislation i intend to introduce to give help to those who are unemployed, it is our commitment to keep the dream of president johnson alive and extinguish. ms. lee: we have three congress people who would like to insert their speeches. the speaker pro tempore: without objection. general leave will be granted on this special order. the gentlelady's time has expired.

under the speaker's announced policy of january 3, 2013, the gentleman from pennsylvania is recognized for 60 minutes as the designee of the majority leader. mr. marino: mr. speaker, i ask unanimous consent that all members may have five legislative days in which to revise and extend their remarks and include extraneous material on the subject of my special order. the speaker pro tempore: without objection. mr. marino: today, i rise to continue to bring attention to an issue that is devastating the people of pennsylvania across the 10th district and other districts in pennsylvania and across this country.

implementation of the bigger waters -- biggert-waters flood insurance act of 2012. it has unintentionally burdened lower and middle class homeowners and small businesses. ates have increased. biggert-waters had the best of intentions, however fema's methodology is severely flawed and fema failed to warn congress. this afternoon, i'm joined by a bipartisan group of my colleagues from across the country and while the details of a proposed solution may vary, i believe we are unified behind the goal protecting the livelihood and investments of hard-working americans. our homes are often our most valuable assets and allows us to retire. it allows us to send our

children to college. it allows us to leave something behind for our children and our grandchildren for a better life. these homes form the backbone of riverside and coastal-working communities. the downfall of these residential markets will be catastrophic. homeowners will lose their total investment in their property. small business will lose their customers, not to mention their real estate. small banks will go out of business because people are not able to pay the insurance that the mortgage calls for. the community left behind will no longer have an adequate tax base to fund basic services. i believe the best solution right now is to repeal biggert-waters in its entirety and start again from square one.

authors of the law in the house financial services committee intended to stabilize the national flood insurance program, but this law has disproportionately affected low and middle-class homeowners who cannot afford these premiums. although we here in congress tend to think in abstract terms, i want to share some of the stories i have heard from my neighbors back home in the 10th congressional district of pennsylvania. jeff and erica walledman rchased a house in muncie, pennsylvania. flood insurance premium was initially $900 per year. now they are being told to pay by the end of last year, the 31st, a few days ago, $9,000 a year for flood insurance upfront. jeff and erica are frustrated about the lack of information

they were given, days away from losing their home as we speak. we cannot solely place this burden on people like jeff and erica. lawyery and michael purchased three historic properties in jersey shore, pennsylvania last year. hopefully, with the new business would rejuvinate the main street for the town. flood insurance premium per ar, per year, was $2,800 per year. they got a notice that they had to pay $40,000 by the end of the year for flood insurance, by the end of 2013. close to walking away from their investments and taking a huge loss, this would also have devastating consequences on other property owners on jersey shore who will have an additional tax burden if

homeowners in the area are not able to keep their homes because they are not able to pay the flood insurance. mr. speaker, at this time, i yield to the gentleman from pennsylvania, congressman thompson. mr. thompson: mr. speaker, i appreciate the gentleman for yielding and i appreciate my good friend from pennsylvania for hosting this special order. this is a very serious issue. biggert-waters was a piece of legislation that we had great hopes in in terms of the national flood insurance program. as a commercial insurance industry really exited the insuring of flood risk, it was left to the federal government. and as that -- and with recent flooding obviously over the past number of years, that funding

decimated. congress last year on a bipartisan basis passed the flood insurance reform act of 2012 and the measure included long overdue reforms that strengthened the financial solvency and administrative efficiency. the rationale was the need for a national flood insurance program to more accurately reflect flood risk. historically, more low-risk states subsidize higher-risk states. they tended to subsidize those with higher risk which were more prone to flooding. the law was to use true rates in order to prevent low risk areas to subsidize. the unintended consequences have been drastic, premium increases for those plans that were subsidized by the national flood insurance program. under the law, congressman dated

that the fema complete an affordability study to evaluate unintended consequences. the stewedy was to be completed before the rates went into effect. it had a safeguard in there that the administration through fema, the agency, fema, was to do affordability studies before rates went up. that's not what happened, mr. speaker. that would have been critical to understanding the full scope of the new risk model. fema has failed to complete the study that was required under the law. it is a huge concern that fema does not have the data to determine risk under this new policy regime and is incapable of creating a new mapping system that truly reflects true ackturel rates. while 80% of the policy holders will not see an increase as a

result of the new policy, a small portion of properties, i think it's a significant portion of properties are being hit with staggering increases. this is a serious concern for individuals including many from the 5th district in pennsylvania. hearing from communities, homeowners, from cameron county county and erie, potter center and that is in recent days. these are individuals and we are at risk of creating ghost towns where homes have lost so much value, they are not able to purchase -- may afford the mortgage but can't afford the flood insurance and individuals who find themselves in situations like my good friend said, number one asset that individuals have is their property, home, real estate. and when it comes time to sell that, they aren't able to

liquidate it. so we are at risk unless we take necessary changes i think to have the administration comply with the law that was passed in 2012 in terms of affordability rates of creating these ghost towns. colleagues on both sides of the aisle have come together to correct this issue. i'm an original co-sponsor and i know my good friend has introduced another bill that would repeal biggert-waters that was introduced in the last couple of days. h.r. 3370 is a bill to terminate -- until -- i'm sorry, to terminate the rate increases under the flood insurance reform act of 2012 until two years after fema completes the study. the bill makes structural

changes to fema to ensure there are advocates for homeowners when flood maps are drawn or adjusted. improving the financial viability of the nation's flood insurance program while ensuring that program that was designed to protect is what members should support. i ask everyone to join to protect our nation's flood insurance program and make sure that our real estate market remains strong and viable and those important assets that individuals have remains being able to be able to buy and to be able to sell. i thank the gentleman for hosting this special order. and i yield back. mr. marino: thank you, congressman thompson. i would like to have a true story happening right now in my district due to these increase in rates. nicky and her husband bought their home in muncie in 2006.

insurance premiums more than $1,750.to ecause the couple suffered tropical storm damage from tropical storm lee, they are subject to an additional 20% on their premiums until they max t at an annual fee of $4,000 annually. so, in essence, they went from $862 a year to $4,000 a year because they were hit in one of the floods. these people are trapped. these townships and small towns along the rivers are trapped into a situation where the average mean income is about $37,000. that's before taxes. that's before mortgage payments.

that's before food for the kids and other insurances and yet these people have to come tween $4,000, $6,000, $8,000 for flood insurance because of the inunintended consequences of biggert-waters. i yield to the gentleman from massachusetts, my colleague from across the aisle, mr. keating, former prosecutor. . the murphy family is seeing flood insurance rise $500 annually in their instance to $5,000, 10 times an amount of an increase. anthony frangie who is a realtor the south shore portion of massachusetts has seen multiple home sales fall through specifically because the flood insurance premiums

were too high. this is a real estate industry not just in my home state but across the country that has been reeling as a result of the worst downturn in the housing industry in recent years that our country has ever experienced. they're beginning to come forward. sales are occurring. one of our most important industries, housing industries are beginning to drive our economy forward, yet, this is going to drive us back. the lending institution that supports this in states like florida, where the inventory was so high where they had houses that people walked away from because they couldn't afford and they couldn't sell themselves, now they have experienced improvement but this is going to set them back and it's going to hurt our economy in the process, not just regionally but nationally. last year, an owner in the community i represent of

marshfield renovated their restaurant to reflect the current flood requirements and they went further. they even went higher when they made these kind of very recollection spencive renovations going above what was needed. today with the new flood maps they must pay millions of dollars in additional renovations to furtherize the building even higher or play flood insurance premiums far in excess of $30,000 annually. something that endangers their ability to conduct basic business. these are just a few of the numerous examples and challenges facing homeowners and businesses that have arisen through the new implementation of the flood insurance exchanges. and fema at hearings where we had -- we had here in answering about the issue of implementation said they perceive their job to overestimate the impact of

this. clearly there's something wrong with the implementation of this law. our office has had individual after individual come forward to us things that affect their own persons and their own homes looking for help. some of them that can afford it have move forward with appeals. and many of those appeals have been successful but they had to risk thousands of dollars in elevation studies in terms of site reviews just to bring their case forward. communities have gone together and brought forth appeals for the entire community. one of those communities in my district went forward and they were so detailed, i looked at what they said and decided to bring it to the attention and to ask this -- the advice and expertise of one of my nation's top coastal expert groups and that's the massachusetts school of marine and technology in

dartmouth, massachusetts. what they determined with their review was that the midwestology used to determine these maps was faulty. in fact, one of the things they found was the wave structure that results in flooding that is the result of storm surges and violent storms in the east and atlantic coast and responsible for the floods, that wasn't used as the methodology to determine what the impact would be on the maps and what the cost would be for flood insurance on all these homeowners. indeed, they use the methodology based on the pacific ocean with a longer slower wave structure and the scientists and coastal engineers that reviewed this for us said what they determined to be the maps was based on faulty science. facing ividuals are enormous burdens, as my colleagues have so aptly

demonstrated in terms of annual payments that could be the difference between being able so stay in your own home, live in your own home or not. annual payments that affect many people on fixed income would never, ever budgeted for this and are throwing them into the most difficult decisions of how they're going to heat their own, how they're going to afford to live, what they're going to do. even younger people who are using or hoping to use the equity on their home to pay for their kids' college education are finding instead of having this go towards that important goal in their life, it's going to pay for flood insurance. now, this is an important thing not only how it affects people in annual payments but what this also does. this affects and can affect the entire value of their home. in fact, real estate people are finding as they're going to sell their homes that the homes that were valued one way are

now dramatically being reduced because of the cost of annual flood insurance attached to that home. so what we have really is a taking as a result of the implementation of this, a taking of people's assets, of their savings, of the roof over their head, of the number one financial asset they have in their lives, and clearly this is not the role of government to affect this type of taking. maybe it's off just one foot and it has this kind of devastating financial and personal impact. that's why i've joined our colleagues in being the -- one of the original sponsors of the homeowner flood insurance affordability act. done in a house in terms of working across the aisle, in terms of a bipartisan

example. this is an example how we worked across the aisle in a common interest realizing how important this is for the people we represent, realizing how important this is to the real estate industry, realizing how important this is to the lending institutions nationally and making sure that government isn't acting in a way that's actually seizing their personal assets and their life savings. we have an obligation, having worked together so hard -- and in my opinion, achieving a very significant majority of the members of this house of representatives to pass this kind of delay, to get it right and make sure we're treating people fairly. this t is imperative that bill be brought to the floor for a vote and brought to the floor quickly for a vote. we're expecting senate action

in this just in the next few weeks. it is my hope, it is my plea, it is our obligation as the court of last resort representing these people who right much in jeopardy now to bring it to the floor, to get a vote, to pass it, to get a delay, to be able to make sure we go to fema and say, you're dealing with people's leaflyhoods, you have an obligation to get it -- livelihoods, you have an obligation to get it right, get it done and when they do they will allow congress to make sure the implementation is continued in the correct manor. so let's move forward -- manner. so let's move forward on this important issue as soon as possible. let's show this as one more example during these very, very challenging times politically of what happens when the -- this house listens to the people in their district and around the country, works together to get something done and does the right thing.

it is my federal reservent hope that we can do this -- it is my federal reserveant hope that we can do this -- fervent hope we can do this quickly. i yield back my time. mr. marino: i want to reiterate the devastating affects these are having on homes, affecting retirement plans for a lot of our seniors in the district. tom rishel, tom does not haven't a pension, he doesn't have a retirement plan, so he invested in several properties in muncie, pennsylvania, hoping run day to resell his properties. his premium has jumped from $600 a year to over $9,500 a year. tom, who is 70 years old, fears his properties are worthless and his dreams of retirement have been destroyed.

mr. speaker, at this time i yield to the gentleman from mississippi, congressman palazzo. thank you, congressman, and thank you so much for putting this special order together this evening for us to talk about the devastating effect the act will have on insurance premiums, not just across coastal america but across america. residents who lived into flood prone areas have paid into the flood insurance market because virtually no private flood insurance market existed. this affect these five million nfip policyholders but what they don't realize is they could be the next flood victim and next victim of these flood insurance hikes and flawed fema policies. according to the fema director,

40% of the u.s. population lives in counties that border the ocean or the great lakes and are directly or indirectly affected by flood risk. in most u.s. counties contain rivers and streams that present flood hazards. 40% of the u.s. population. that's more than 126 million americans that could be affected by these issues in the coming years. this map shows exactly where you can find nfip policyholders. we're not just talking about a few people living in coastal areas. this isn't just mississippi, louisiana, new york, new jersey or florida's problem. this map hasn't even been updated to include those affected by the recent flooding in colorado. we're talking about millions of people across america in every single just and just about every single congressional district who will be impacted by these drastic rate increases. the waters act of 2012 was passed with the intention of ensuring that the program remains solvent for these policyholders, to ensure it's there for the people that have paid into the system when a

disaster strikes. it was never intended to make rates so unaffordable that flood insurance is no longer attainable for these policyholders. yet, when you look what's happening now and the way fema is implementing the law, that is exactly what we're seeing. there are those who have said these people are just a bunch of wealthy waterfront homeowners. that's simply not trufmente i can tell you that is not the case in my district. i'm hearing from teachers, veterans, fishermen, people who work at the shipyards in support of our navy. these are everyday americans, some who live 50, 100 miles more inland. these are folks who have been responsible in maintaining flood insurance policies for years and sunk untold thousands of dollars of their own funds into their community's recovery from hurricane katrina. they built back the higher fema standards. many of them invested in mitigation against future risk. they used every tool at their disposal and went to great lengths and great costs to

comply with the law and do their part. and now they're being punished for doing that. they're being hit with astronomical rate increases overnight. worse, they're unable to get straight answers from fema or from their flood insurance agents who are looking to fema for answers. many are retirement age. one bank in my district estimated 400 elderly homeowners are seeing a force into foreclosure. a navy veteran says, please don't think that we live in a waterfront home. we live miles inland. she told me 11 months, they are taking extra precautions and meeting demands of inspectors and permits throughout the process. we felt proud to be part of the rebuilding of the mississippi gulf coast, she says, but she also tells me a large increase could bury us. another military retiree couple

on fixed incomes say their flood insurance has risen from $400 a year to at least $4,000 a year. he said despite doing our home work, prior to purchase, putting a considerable down payment on the home, doing due diligence following the storm repairing that home, that flood map changes and increase in flood insurance rates have put them in the position of possibly to lose their home with no fallback. linda, a 65-year-old single woman, tells me she hopes to retire this year after nearly 40 years working as a teacher. she says like so many others, i rebuilt my home after katrina following the guidelines of then current flood maps. if the flood rates go to the proposed levels, there's no way i can afford to keep my home. i have worked all of my life, contributed to the community i live in, followed the rules, paid my debts, now i am faced with lossing my home, my retirement -- losing my home, my retirement and my sense of security.

these are a few examples of how these rate increases are affecting everyday mississippiians. millions more like them are across the nation and some don't realize the storm that is coming. we're not just talking about a few folks along the coast, we're not talking about wealthy waterfront homeowners who are looking for a taxpayer handout. anyone that says o's are blatantly mis-- says otherwise are blatantly misleading the american people. these people, they are the reason we are here today. they are the reason that republicans and democrats from every corner of the country are supporting our efforts. we have aggetted to make compassionate reforms by keeping this program sound. we addressed unintended consequences and hold fema accountable for questionable methods. we will continue to fight for those caught in the cracks through no fault of their own, the hard-working americans who

followed the rules. now we have a responsibility to make this right and we will not stop until the job's finished. i yield back the balance of my time. mr. marino: thank you. your map says it all. after speaking with many constituents during the recess, including five town halls that i held, i believe that many homeowners who have seen their rates increase were not even aware, were not even aware that the national flood insurance program rates were partially subsidized by the federal government. and as the congressman just said, please do not think that this pertains to california coast alone or new jersey or new york. this affects people all across the united states. just in the state of pennsylvania alone, we are not

on a coast. we are in by several hundred miles. there are several thousands of miles of waterways, rivers, creeks, streams. and just to give you an example. in one of the town meetings, i asked jeff and his wife, they bought a house, paid it off early. paid their taxes. kept their insurance up. again their insurance is going up from about $600 a year to $11,000 a year and i said to jeff, when you were at your closing and the realtor is sitting with you and the bank and lawyer is sitting with you and said now we need a check for the flood insurance because you have a federally-backed loan and you are in a flood area, so you wrote out a check for $600 or

$700, i said, did anyone say to you that 2/3 of the cost of the flood insurance is subsidized by the federal government? he said never. i said did anyone say to you that that subsidy could go away some day? never. did anyone tell you that the rates were going up because of that subsidy? never. so it's not fair to the american people who were not told ahead of time, this is before recent closings and they have their rug pulled out from them. and we are saying in essence, this is the unintended consequence of biggert-waters, but fema did not give us the right information. i believe they held information back and we are saying to the american people who are on $35,000 a year annual income who have to pay $10,000 up front, you know something? we had a subsidy for you

yesterday. but guess what? it's not there today. and too bad that you may lose your house. we cannot let that happen. and now it gives me great pleasure to yield to the gentleman from new york, congressman grimm. mr. grimm: >> i would like to thank my colleague for the opportunity to speak today and for his hard work on this important issue. i rise today to discuss this urgent need for congress to act as quickly as possible to delay the skyrocket flood insurance premiums that are crippling homeowners in my district of staten island and brooklyn as well as across this entire great nation. in 2012, we all know that congress passed the biggert-waters flood insurance reform act and that is was an attempt to stabilize the program. and the program finds itself in

$30 billion in debt. while well intentioned, this law has had devastating effects on homeowners across the country. they are seeing their premiums increase not just by hundreds but by thousands of percent each year with more increases to come in the future. in my district alone, i met with hundreds of concerned citizens, homeowners. i have a senior who came to me with her bill and her old bill. the premium was $2,200 a year and the new bill was $28,000. she's on a fixed income. she's not in a position to pay $28,000 a year. and unfortunately for her, she can't sell the property because the property's value doesn't warrant such an extravagant

flood insurance premium. no one will buy it. i had a working-class family show me a bill for $37,000. that was their flood insurance premium. what does that mean? it means they are trapped. they can't sell the house. no one is going to buy a modest home for $200,000 or $300,000 with flood insurance of $37,000. this situation shouldn't be allowed to continue and cannot be unaaddressed. last year, my district and the entire northeast was devastated by superstorm sandy. tens of thousands of my constituents found themselves homeless for the first time in their lives. their lives were turned upside down. they were wondering how they were going to rebuild and move forward. many of them literally lost everything they have ever known.

every worldly possession was gone. and they knew then, as we do now, it would be years before their lives would return to any form of normalcy. many of these people, unfortunately, still have not moved back into their homes. many of them are struggling to rebuild as we speak right now. so to ask these victims of a natural disaster, who find themselves in a horrible position, through no fault of their own, to pay upwards of $15,000 a year or more in flood insurance premiums so soon after a natural diss as took took everything from them -- disaster took everything away from them, if these premiums continue to go into effect, many of my constituents will find themselves to pay their mortgage

and flood insurance. their property will lose considerable value. but in the worst-case scenario, become completely worthless. this is unacceptable. to many americans, their home is the largest asset they have ever owned in their lifetime. to destroy the value of those assets through flood insurance premium increases amounts to one of the largest takings of private property in u.s. history. thankfully, there is a solution. there is a solution that has been proposed in both houses of congress and which i'm very proud to say i'm one of the lead sponsors. h.r. 3370, the homeowner flood insurance affordability act, which would halt these draconian rate increases. as of today, i can report that this commonsense legislation has over 170 bipartisan co-sponsors. and that support is growing every single day.

this legislation simply would delay these rate increases for up to four years, giving fema time to both completely -- complete the affordability study mandated under biggert-waters and propose a framework to congress to maintain the long-term affordability of flood insurance. that will give congress the time to consider their proposals. if long-term affordability of flood insurance is not taken into account when setting future premiums, many americans are simply going to stop paying for this important coverage and just not going to be able to do it. this will only damage the fiscal soundness of the national flood insurance program over the long-term. an expansion in the number of uninsured homes will only increase the direct cost to the federal government for future natural disasters. it's common sense. it's math. if people don't pay into the

program, the cost to the federal government will go up the next time there is a natural disaster. it's that simple. in closing, i would like to urge my colleagues in supporting this vital legislation. the sooner that we act to delay these flood insurance rate increases, the sooner we can bring stability not only to the real estate market but to our frag pill demi economy. and will be much needed relief to extremely nervous homeowners across this nation. i thank the speaker and i thank my friend from pennsylvania. and i yield back. mr. marino: thank you, congressman grimm. how much time do i have? the speaker pro tempore: the gentleman has 25 minutes remaining. mr. marino: mr. speaker, i hold in my hand here a report, a statement from the national association of realtors. a moment ago, i quoted realtors

nd lawyers and banks become at closings. these folks are telling me they were never told about these increases and i want to read a small section from the statement dated november 19, 2013. subtitle of home buyers were not warned. quote, because fema delayed, then retroactively applied the purchase provisions of section 205, many home buyers specifically those who bought between the enactment of biggert-waters and march 12 of 2013, were not warned, were not warned of rate increases before purchasing their properties. flood insurance policies were not labeled as subsidies. it's not their fault.

mr. speaker, at this time, it gives me pleasure to introduce the gentleman from louisiana, congressman cassidy. mr. cassidy: thank you. mr. speaker, i rise in support of the reform of the biggert-waters act. and let's first point out that the flood insurance program was reformed under biggert-waters, the goal to make it affordable and accessible and made flood insurance accessible but being implemented in such a way to make it unaffordable. the question is, as some people called it a bailout for vacation homes, for the rich people, is it going to improve the solvency of the program and see how these reforms play out. let's address each of these, this will do absolutely nothing for the solvency of the national

flood insurance program. indead, it's guaranteed to make it insolvent. fema estimates that for every 10% increase in a premium, you have a 1% decrease in the number of people purchasing that policy. do the math. somebody's policy is now $700, if it rises to $7,000, they have bavelly 100% chance of dropping their policy. when that happens, fema has to cover their fixed costs. those fixed costs are concentrated under fewer and fewer subscribers under the insurance policy, which means more people get to the point where they can no longer afford this policy, which means that fixed cost is concentrated further. you have entered the deeth spiral of a program. the national flood insurance program dice. that will happen under the assumption used by c.b.o. for these estimates. some would say wait a second,

fema has good reforms to work with, that's true, but they aren't implementing them. fema is doing new flood maps with a no-levee analysis. if the army corps of engineers has not certified. there is a parish in south louisiana has a levee they built themselves. and they have pictures on one side and they have floodwaters and on the other side, dry land with flowers. the levees clearly work. but because they aren't certified, the parish gets no credit. jefferson parish, suburb of new orleans has big pumps to help reduce floodwaters, fema doesn't include these. this wasn't supposed to be part of biggert-waters but that's how the program is being implemented. is this a bailout for rich people?

the people in louisiana who will benefit from reforming our current process, which is to say suffer from biggert-waters, are working people. they work in the refineries that provide the gasoline for the rest of the nation. heir homes are $120,000 to $200,000. these are not people insuring vacation homes, these are folks in their primary residences and in many cases that haven't flooded but homes that would suffer under this program. and the harm to the economy that will occur. the uncertainty of the cost of flood insurance is freeze ping real estate markets. home builders have no market for the homes they wish to build. there is a cratering of the bank lending. indeed there are reports of people taking their keys into the bank and dropping those keys on a desk unable to afford the flood insurance and walking away

from the home that they are attempting to purchase. the impact upon the rest of the country, most of the refined gasoline in the rest of the country is refined on the gulf coast, louisiana and in texas. those workers cannot afford to keep the homes that allow them to work in these refineries. there is an economic impact both locally in the state but indeed goes nationwide. flood insurance should be accessible and affordable and biggert-waters needs to be affordable. with that, i yield back. >> thank youing congressman cassidy. i represent 15 counties in the state of pennsylvania and i hold in my hand a petition signed by over 1,000 people just from my county.

mr. marino: just from my county. that are faced with this disaster. most of these people have a combined income before taxes of less than $40,000 a year. mr. speaker, at this time, it is my pleasure to introduce the gentleman from pennsylvania, congressman fitzpatrick. mr. fitzpatrick: i thank my colleague from the commonwealth of pennsylvania, mr. marino, for organizing this special order. i know mr. marino, like i, are hearing from constituents back home. they live in areas surrounded by properties that are habitually and repeatedly flooded. they pay their flood insurance premiums every year and they are being negatively impacted by fema's implementation of the flood insurance reforms that occurred. last queer the flood insurance reforms were passed because since 2006, the government

accountability office warned that the program was putting taxpayers at high risk because of losses from ka tree in in -- katrina in 2005 and other subsequent disasters. currently the program owes the treasury, we heard earlier this evening, perhaps as much as $30 billion. as the g.a.o. stated, these risks are the result of structural weaknesses in how the rate structure provides funding to the program itself. as a result of this, the house and senate came together and reformed the program in some very important ways. however, just because the national flood insurance program was in desperate need of reform does not mean we should just simply walk away and consider our job to be done. there are families across the country and in my district who are suffering from what they refer to as rate shock. i've heard from homeowners, i've heard from senior citizens who have lived in their home for decades trying to sell their

home in retirement, i've heard from young couples, newly married, first-time home buyers who encountered significant challenges while trying to either sell their homes or purchase their first home. ome families face increases of 4,000% or more. my office is working with many constituents including one senior citizen from the section of bristol township, a beautiful section, working class neighborhood, called croydon, subject to some flooding. this ohm one -- homeowner, raised the -- raised her family and lived new mexico home for decades, and now in retirement wants to sell her home to provide for retirement. and now because the rates have increased and encrew -- encreased, not over time but all at oncemark purchasers, potential buyers have walked away from her property, saying they can't afford to purchase the property. she can't afford to sell the

property. her senior years, she's trapped in a home she wanted to sell. one possible solution is to more gently phase in rate adjustments. another would be to freeze them outright while we work on a longer term solution. either way, i look forward to working with my colleagues, including those speaking here this evening. we can find a way to move forward with crucial reforms to a very important program while still protecting the families we represent from reductions in the values of the homes that may very well be the only asset they have or were counting on in their retirement. with that, mr. marino, i yield back the balance of my time and thank you for your interest and concern for our mutual constituents become home in pennsylvania on this issue. mr. marino: thank you, mr. fitzpatrick. mr. chairman, i have the honor of introducing the gentlelady from florida, congresswoman ros-lehtinen.

ms. rossross: thank you very uch -- ms. rostrost -- ms. ros-lehtinen: thank you, mr. speaker. flooding is the nation's number one disaster. most insurance companies do not offer their own flood insurance and standard homeowners insurance policies do not cover flooding. yet, mr. speaker, yet, flood insurance is required to purchase a home in a floodplain in order to receive a federally backed mortgage. the national flood insurance program, nfib, was created to help alleviate this dilemma. however, the program is over $25 billion in debt. while a sub stab rble portion of that debt is directly due to hurricane katrina, many elected officials and our constituents from places less familiar with flooding believe the problem is

insol -- the program is insol gent because of artificially low premiums. however in my home state of florida, mr. speaker, where nearly 40% of all nfib policies are held, we have learned from devastating disasters like hurricane andrew and have effective building codes and flood mitigation projects in place. these policies have made our state, florida, and a net donor state to the program where we pay far more in premiums than we ever receive back in payouts. nevertheless, when the nfib was last re-authorized, it contained provisions that would raise rates on all policyholders. sometimes by astronomical amounts. and while the re-authorization program was vital because there had been a series of devastating program lapses that made it impossible to close on the

purchase of a house, fema, the agency that administers the nfib, testified that the rate increases would be nominal to most homeowners. nominal? that obviously was far from the truth. mandated affordableability study that was suppose -- affordability study that was upposed to happen never did. i have co-sponsored different measures that would work to keep flood insurance rates afordable for my constituents in south florida. i have also signed on to a letter to house leadership opposing flood insurance hikes to encourage relief for the millions of homeowners, for the millions of small businesses susceptible to steep rate increases across the country and i sent the letter to fema asking this agency to use its authority to keep flood insurance rates

affordable. i also voted to shield flood insurance policyholders from excessive rate hikes in this year's fiscal year 14 homeland security appropriations act. mr. speaker, the national flood insurance program is vital for our community and without affordable rates, south florida is in grave danger. halting rate increases will ensure that families and businesses are able to thrive rather than succumb to this inexcusable bureaucratic storm. and i thank the speaker for the time and i thank mr. marino of pennsylvania for the time as well and for his leadership on this important issue. thank you, sir. mr. marino: thank you, congresswoman. mr. speaker, how much time do i have? the speaker pro tempore: the gentleman has 12 minutes. mr. marino: at this time i yield to the gentleman from louisiana, congressman scalise. mr. scalise: i want to thank the

gentleman from pennsylvania for his leadership and for yielding time. clearly when you look at the problems with the national flood insurance program, what brought us to this point were a number of things, one was that the program continued to lapse over and over again multiple times, congress had passed many patches an band-aids. ultimately we would love to see a private marketplace where people could go buy flood insurance. the federal government requires that people in many areas purchase flood insurance. yet the only place you can go ight now is nfip, you can only go there to buy this which is a requirement for people purchasing a home in many places. so if you look at how the implementation by fema is adversely affecting people across the country, specifically some examples we've seen in southeast louisiana, in my district, point out glaring inequalities that have to be fixed by congress for this program to work proper he. in fact, many of the things we

all want to see to get to an actuaryly sound program will be goes ned if fema reform forward without the reforms we been building a bipartisan coalition to implement. i'll give you a couple of examples in south louisiana. one parish is right on the frontlines of the gull of mexico. not people with multimillion dollar vacation homes, need are hard working taxpayers, people who work in the oil field to produce american energy. people who are middle class families being faced now with this rate shock. in many cases these are people who never flooded. we've got a levee district we went and brought some of the fema officials out to just a few months ago. the larose to golden meadow protection system. it was a levee protection system built by local people with local

money. not federal money. it wasn't brought by the corps of engineers. in the corps' levees failed katrina. these folks built their own levee and never flooded in katrina or rita or isaac. this levee protection system was so successful many never filed a flood insurance claim. yet fema ignores that the levee protection system exists. and some of these people will be flood ith $20,000 a year insurance rate. some say that's a sound rate but it's going to be a death sentence. andou own a $200,000 house, fema says, your flood insurance will be $20,000 a year, you're forces them out of their home. these are people who never even flooded, they paid their own tax $s, not federal money but local

money, to build a flood protection system that works, that worked through all these storms yet fema is ignoring that that flood protection system even exists. fema certified the corps flood protection systems that failed. these are the things that we're trying to address and fix, working in a bipartisan way because ultimately we want to see a competitive system, we want to see a system that's sound. anyone who thinks these massive increases you'd be sending to people who played by the rules and never filed a claim in many cases could pay a $15,000 or $20,000 a year preemwrum in flood insurance when that's more than they're paying for their home note, that's fantasy. we're going to continue working to get this fixed, to put in place is a system that's sound, where people can continue to play by the rules, continue to keep their homes and continue to be good, productive taxpayers and contribute to our society like they are today. that's what we're going to

continue to work on. i thank the gentleman from pennsylvania for his leadership and yield back to him. pll marino: mr. speaker, how much time do i have left? mr. speaker, you heard the devastating stories tonight about what the american people are faced with. mr. marino: i have had other the past several weeks numerous conversations with people involved in this legislation, people involved in the agencies, people involved in committees, d to put it quite bluntly, fema's methodology is extremely, extremely flawed. and i ask, and i knew the answer to this, but i wanted to hear it from people with whom i spoke, so how many people is this affecting? well it's only affecting not quite three million people in

the united states. and i said, what do you mean only? well, we have indications in fema -- and fema knew that there would be a small percentage a small number of people who would get hit with extremely large bills. and i asked on the telephone when i was talking to several of these people, are you one of the less than three million people? and there was dead silence. and i said, well, you've answered the question, you're not. so obviously this is just being aken for granted. do we want to create ghost towns across this country or continue to improve cities and towns? i think the latter. i think we need to improve the quality of life for the american people. congress works for the american people. i work for the people of the

10th congressional district and we have a responsibility here. you know, it wasn't -- we bail out the banks, we bail out the auto industry. and you know something? my people in the 10th congressional district and people across this country. they don't want to be bailed out but want a level playing field. in conclusion. we need to bring all of the available options to the table for a bipartisan solution to the flood insurance rate increase. colleagues that joined me here this evening showed me how important it is to a wide range of districts throughout the country and we have to assist these constituents and i look forward to participating along with my colleagues on on the committee on financial services on crafting a solution. remember, mr. speaker, this is a nationwide problem and i keep

reiterating. many of the people in my district have a combined income f $40,000 a year before taxes. they is simply cannot afford $10,000 and $15,000 bills of which they have no anticipation of what's coming. i promise and as my colleagues, i'm speaking for them, we will do everything in our power to make this right and to make this fair and put our constituents on a level playing field. with that, mr. speaker, i yield back the balance of my time. the speaker pro tempore: the gentleman yields back the balance of his time. under the speaker's announced policy of january 3, 2013, the chair recognizes the gentleman from tennessee, mr. cohen, for 30 minutes. mr. cohen: thank you, mr. speaker. i appreciate the colleagues who have joined me today for 30 minutes special order and it's a special, special order. i ask unanimous consent that all

members have five legislative days to revise and extend their remarks and include extraneous remarks under the subject of this special order. the speaker pro tempore: without objection. mr. cohen: this is the third anniversary of the shooting in tucson that took six lives injured 13 people including our colleague, gabby giffords. when i say colleague, it's our colleague here in the house of representatives. but as a member of the class of 2006, which representative giffords is, we take special significance in this day, because she was one of our prized members, we all loved her. and we are joined here. mr. yarmouth and mr. perlmutter and other members as well. we wanted to express our remembrances of gabby and particularly the article that she wrote that is in today's

"new york times" called the lessons of physical therapy and talks about her recovery and spirit where she tells about her exercises every day to get back her strength and recover strength and physical mobility. today, in fact, she skydived. she is a great spirit who has not let the problems that she has experienced limit her. and she is trying to overcome these obstacles and teaching people that they can overcome obstacles. after leaving the house after serving five years and coming back here on august 1, 2011 which was a memorable moment to vote on the debt ceiling which was a close vote. and on that day, i was at the airport reading a -- greeting a

close person in my life and saw gabby and was able to see her for the first time since the january 8 incident. and then she was on the floor and we all got to see her. she came back and made that effort and thought about how can she contribute more. avenue toup, she is starting an organization with her husband captain mark kelly, reliable solutions on gun laws and tried to lead the effort and make america's laws more sensible to save other people from the tragedy that she experienced, as did the six victims that day that died and the others that were injured, including congressman barber who led us in moment of silence on the

floor. we want to remember that day. it is a significant day in american history. that was an assault on congress people meeting with their constituents, open government. the democrat form of government and meeting and listening and gabby was engaging in a congress neighborhood meeting at the grocery there, which ed perlmutter did a lot of those. and i would like to yield at this moment to president of our class, mr. -- the surviving member of our class, mr. yarmouth. mr. yarmuth: mr. speaker, this is a very meaningful day. like so many things in our lives, there are certain events that you always recall where you were when they occurred. and i remember very well that saturday when i was at lunch

with a group of friends and received word that gabby had been shot. and i remember later in the day not too long after that when the reports were actually that she has passed away. i remember the feelings i had then. fortunately, she did survive. but the emotions of that day live with me. and unfortunately, they are reinforced too many times. they have been reinforced at new town, aurora and even before the gabby giffords' shooting in tucson, it was reinforced in louisville, kentucky, where a disgruntled employee shut -- shot with an assault weapon, a number of co-workers at a printing plant that prints the

local newspaper. and a mass shooting in kentucky, one of the first school shootings. and unfortunately, the list continues to grow. these inexplicable shootings, many of which committed with weapons that are designed only to inflict massive casualties. and after newtown, i spoke out the next day and saying saying i was sorry i hadn't spoke out on a regular basis and i have spoken out to make it a mission to try and create saner gun laws in our country. even in my state of kentucky with a long and significant gun culture, vast majority of our citizens believe we ought to

have universal background hecks, yet we haven't made any inroads in that effort. in that gabby giffords shooting, laughner was wrestled to the ground when he was stopped to reload. he didn't have a 30-capacity magazine but a lesser capacity, and yet we can't deal with, again these weapons and magazines made to inflict damage on many, many people. and i can't help but think that a lot of the frustration with congress, with this government throughout the country is not a function of our inability or unwillingness to work the will of the american people. and as we remember now this

tragedy of three years ago and also remember the incredible work of gabby giffords over these last three years in trying to create a saner approach to guns in this country, it's important that we recognize that we do have an obligation to respond to what the american people want us to do. and if we could take simple steps, sane steps, logical steps, like requiring everyone who purchases a weapon in this country to undergo a back grouped check, maybe our approval rating, maybe the confidence and credibility of government will improve slightly. it's an honor here to stand here on the floor to pay tribute to a friend, a colleague and a great american who continues to fight for her country and our citizens. and to urge all of us think

about what she has stood for over the last three years and rededicate our efforts in improving the lives of the security of the american people. with that, mr. cohen, i yield back. mr. cohen: thank you, mr. yarmuth. mr. perlmutter representsal district that has seen so much tragedy from firearms. and i know he has been a leader in this effort in colorado and the country and i appreciate him being here. one of the strong members of this class on this issue and other issues and i yield to mr. perlmutter. mr. perlmutter: i thank my friend from tennessee and my friend from kentucky. three years ago today, one of our best friends here, gabby giffords, was shot, shot at close range. shot when she was doing her job. congress on the corner. out in front of a safe way in

tucson, arizona and our job is to be the voice of our district, to listen to what the people have to say about a million different subjects and be their voice here in washington, d.c. and she was just that. she was the voice of that district. and she worked hard and represented them and she was enthusiastic and energetic and a voice of reason here in washington, d.c., and she was shot. but that hasn't stopped her. this woman has such energy and ch discipline and such perseverance, she keeps going and dealing with a subject that is tough to address in the united states of america. on the one hand, we have the second amendment and law-abiding citizens have rights under the second amendment to possess weapons. on the other hand, people have the right not to be shot.

nd she's trying as part of her work these days to make sure that people who are criminals, who are domestic abusers, who may have mental health issues aren't in possession of weapons that can hurt people. and as the gentleman from tennessee said, my area, we have had shootings at columbine high school and aurora movie theater. 0 people in july of -- 70 people in july of 2012, were shot. and in colorado we have addressed it, but not without some real resistance by some communities. what we want to make sure here in this country is that people who are law-abiding citizens can have their weapons, but they should undergo a background

check to make sure they are not domestic abusers, criminals or stalkers. we need to make sure of those kinds of things. and gabby is working hard to make sure that that happens after on top of her rehabilitation. and her work ethic and second to none in doing this. and so, there is a lot of work to be done to try to minimize gun violence. and there's a lot of work that she's doing to recover. and this woman is doing both of those things when she nearly died from a shot at close quarters. and she's tough. she is an american through-a and-through. she will continue to work and work for the betterment of her community and this nation and i'm glad i got a chance to say something, mr. cohen, in terms

of you know, some kind of tribute to the effort she is making on behalf of so many of us. i would return or i can lead to one of our other class of 2006. but i can say we are very proud of gabby giffords both when she was here and to the service she provides to the nation just in her evidence life. mr. cohen: thanks, mr. perlmutter. mr. courtney of connecticut who is involved with newtown and i yield to mr. courtney, another member of the class of 2006. mr. courtney: the class of 2006 was a tight group, we would meet every morning. congresswoman giffords was one of that group. she was an outstanding

congresswoman. she sat with me on the armed service committee. she was tenacious in terms of the defense authorization bill markups in terms of making sure the base in her district was fully protected and represented to the maximum extent. she also was a huge advocate for the post-9/11 g.i. bill which some of us remember that struggle to expand the g.i. bill and to restore the benefit for soldiers and veterans and their families that had deteriorated over time, giving again the full tuition benefit for a four-year college within the state in which the service member resides and to extend the benefit to spouses and children. just a few days ago, actually, the department of veterans' affairs announced the one millionth enrollee in that program. and again, gabbie was at the absolute beginning of that struggle which again had to overcome active resistance from

then bush administration, it was gos that got that measure passed and through. again, a million families, service members, have benefited from it. an interesting paraphernalia at the call remark or observation was that when that program went online, it had a huge technological computer malfunction, secretary shinseki and the v.a. had to manually cut paid. so tuition was but gabbie's record of restoring that g.i. bill benefit is again one of the great accomplishments of her time in congress. you know, as my friend from colorado said, her record since her injury is really amazing. i remember standing in the back of the chamber when she cast her final vote as a member of congress. it was the budget package that, again, kept the country from

defaulting. when she walked through that door, again, limping up those steps, it really was almost a miraculous moment. no one knew, except a very small group of people, that she had actually flown out here to cast that ballot but it showed in my opinion, her patriotism, that she felt her country was in trouble and her country needed her and she, despite all of her difficulties and disabilities, wanted to be here to cast that ballot. again it was a capstone to just an extraordinary record of service for her district. you know, as mr. cohen mentioned, i come from the state of connecticut, which is obviously the state where the sandy hook shooting took place, again, just over a year ago, a traumatic event. connecticut is a very small state. newtown high school where president obama came and spoke to families and first responders a couple of days after the incident, about 50 minutes from

my house and i live in the furthest district from the fifth congressional district where newtown is located. so again it had reverberations throughout the state. we had family members who live in the second congressional district who lost loved ones in that horrendous incident. ened frankly, just before the break, a lot of those families came and visited washington, d.c., it's been a year since that incident. as mr. yarmuth indicated, the frustration about the fact that this city did not respond to that horrific event where 6-year-olds and 7-year-olds lost their lives to an individual who never should have been in possession of high powered weapons, or any weapons of any kind, has still not resulted in any legislative change. i think it's important to give the administration credit that a few weeks ago they did issue new rules so that mental health collection of data for the brady

system is going to be strengthened. if you look again at the series of events that have occurred in communities since sandy hook, even right down the road here at the texas naval yard. again it was another individual, deranged individual, again, who should never have been in position to possess weapons and the rules issued a few days ago, again, will expand the scope of court findings, whether it's a workers compensation case or whether it's a probate court case where an individual has been found to be mentally ill to the point where they can't support themselves and should get social security disability benefits, that that commonsense change is now going to feed into the brady system so that record checks will at least administratively be strengthened. clearly the gunshot loophole, the patchwork of reporting needs to be strengthened by an act of congress and that's certainly what gabbie is calling upon all of us to have the courage to be

able to look these families in the eye who came to washington a few weeks ago and said, you know, we understand that that never should have happened and we're pe paired to make changes, commonsense changes, constitutional changes, to the system. you know, enge it's important to note, as mr. perlmutter said, if you read the d.c. vs. heller case, the hallmark case of an individual's right to bear arms and you read justice scalia's decision, he made it crystal clear that the right to own firearms does not extend to criminals, to mentally ill, and that in fact certain classes and categories of weapons, whether it's fully automatic machine guns or other weapons not in common need or use are not protected by the d.c.-heller decision. like any portion of the bill of rights, there are restrictions which the courts recognize and give us the latitude to do our job and to make commonsense

changes. so again, you know, gabbie's injuries, which again took place two years ago, it's hard to believe that that much time has gone by. it's something that again we've still got to hold on to that and make sure that her amazing service in the congress and also her record of advocacy is something that, you know, we live up to that example, that inspiring example and do what's right for the american people. with that, i again refer back to my friend, mr. cohen. mr. cohen: thank you. gabbie was a member of the nra, i don't know if she is now. i passed the right to carry bill in tennessee. i think you can have reasonable laws to allow people to defend themselves but there's reasonable -- but there's reasonableness. the problem we have is reasonableness. gabbie's effort with her husband mark is reasonable solutions. it's not banning guns, it's responsible solutions. mental health is one of those. -- one of those issues that's

been raised and yet we in our budgets have cut mental health with the budgets we've had up here. and some have blamed the response about the violent games that children might play or be exposed to, those weren't around when charles whitman went to the power -- tow for the austin, texas, and killed 30 people. that wasn't the cause of it. it's a uniquely american problem. studies have shown u.s. homicide than are 6.9 times higher in other wealthy countries. in the countries studied of higher industrialized countries, 80% of firearm deaths occurred in the united states. 80% of women killed were united states women and 87% of the

children were united states children. mr. welch, a member of the class of 2006, has joined us. i know he has understanding of these issues too and a responsible and reasonable voice. i yield to him for his comments and thoughts. mr. welch: thank you, mr. cohen. so wonderful to hear about our classmate. we who were elected with gabbie had the privilege to get to know her personally, to see her grit an determination, her effectiveness representing her district. the incredible job she did on armed services. remember, she had a kind word for everybody, she didn't forget anything. she was totally devoted to her staff and to her constituents. and what a flash it was -- a pleasure it was. all of us, i think, felt that if congress was filled with folks leek fwabby giffords, the world would be -- like gabbie giffords, the world would be a better place, even congress. since her shooting three years

ago, america has gotten a glimpse swo that person of character and beauty that all of us got to know as a classmate. and what an extraordinary person she is. i want to read a little bit if i could, mr. speaker, from her op-ed because it captures things. when this happened three years ago, she mentioned, i was allowed the opportunity for a new life. but she had planned to spend her 40's continuing her public service and starting a fam -- a family with this wonderful man, her husband, who she married while she was in service here in congress, mark kelly. remember when we saw mark kelly struggling with the question of his wife in the hospital, having to decide whether to continue the command -- continue to command the mission into space and how he struggled with that, wanting to be doing what he was trained all his life to do and be also the extraordinary husband that he was and how gabbie was his biggest supporter

that he continue the mission. . what a couple they are. and then to hear her describe what she's had to go through. she was really at let ex. she rode horses, rode motorcycles, she hiked up and town the grand canyon. and she was just a very physically fit and vigorous outdoorswoman. and she, in that moment that she was shot and really the question was whether she was going to live, she did. a blessing for her, for us, for america, for her family. but her life then required her to face an incredible challenge. how do learn things that se we now take for granted. and she describes, i spent the last three years learning how to talk again. how to walk again. i had to learn to sign my name with my left hand. it's gritty, painful, frustrating work, every day. rehab is endlessly repetitive.

it's never easy because once you mastered some movement or action or word, no matter how small, you move on to the next. never rest. what gabbie did, that was the life that was in front of her and she had to make a decision about whether to engage and move forward knowing how hard that would be, how repetitive it would be, and she did it. of course at the end, she's been making progress. incredible progress. and she celebrates in this op-ed that she didn't imagine her strickened, paralyze arm would ever move again, for so many days it did not. until one day it did. so she faces life and embraces this new life, there's nothing compared to that athletic, horse-riding, motorcycle-riding, grand canyon-climbing person

that was very easy for her to be. she had all of that, those personal qualities with this enormous commitment to public life and had a belief that what we did to try to shape public policy mattered. how you treated the person in your life, the ones you love, incredibly important. how but -- but how you use that las vegas to try to build laws and create opportunities for a better, less violent, more peaceful society, she had the energy and the heart to do that as well. and she's continuing that with her cause, working side by side with her husband mark, for sensible gun legislation. and you know, when i think about what she's done, and sure, we can have a legitimate debate about what's the right law. i definitely think the background checks, why wouldn't

we have that apply to snemb doesn't restrict their ability, just means they go through the check. but when i consider that and think, there's legitimate debates on both sides, the second amendment is extremely important and we're ail supporters of it, well, what's the problem with congress voting on it? why is it that we can't summon the will to simply put on the floor for a debate and then a vote where each one of us says yes or no on that proposed legislation, background check, and let americans then decide what they think of us, whether they agree with us or they don't. you know, at a certain point, it's just a question of whether we'll do our job. in doing our -- and doing our job debating the major issues of the time that are of concern to the people of this country and then standing and voting yes or no. you know, i say we owe that to gabbie. gabbie wouldn't see it that way.

she'd say we owe it to ourselves to take on the responsibility that we sought when we ran for public office and took on the privilege of representing the people who sent us here. so i say thank you to gabbie for all she's done and i challenge us to try to do a little bit of what gabbie would do if she were here to help us today. i yield back. mr. cohen: mr. speaker, how much time do we have? the speaker pro tempore: the gentleman has about three minutes left. mr. cohen: i yield to mr. perlmutter. mr. perlmutter: i want to talk about something mr. welch said and something mr. kourtney said. mr. kourtney said she had worked on some -- mr. courtney said she had worked on some things involving technology, with the v.a., there were technological problems with what she was get bug she's a cureus individual about ught a curiosity

technology. she was one of the first adopters of the ipad when we began using it here, she became an expert in it before any of us here. she was strong enough that she worked at her dad's tire store. so here is a woman who brought that energy, brought that enthusiasm, brought that curiosity and brought a real service, a desire for service to this country and despite terrible wounds, she continues that service today. it is our job to continue to provide that service and follow her example. despite all the obstacles, here's a woman still changing the world and i'm very glad to be able to speak for her in this moment today three years after she was shot and still making a difference. i yield back to my friend from tennessee. mr. cohen: i thank all the members and others that would have been here, but certain

conflicts at this time. we miss gabby. she was the star of our class and it was before three years ago on the 8th of january and she was the star of our class. i thank each of our colleagues from joining us and i thank gabby for her continued service. she is an american hero. and in the process of which gabby was a large part and great supporter of, she would want me to yield to the rules committee, because the beat goes on. the speaker pro tempore: the gentleman's time has expired. for what purpose does the gentleman from texas seek recognition? mr. burgess: i send a privileged report from the committee on rules for filing under the rule. the clerk: report to accompany house resolution 45 , resolution providing for consideration of the bill, h.r. 2279, to amend

the solid waste disposal act relating to review of regulations under such act and amend the comprehensive response and liability act relating to financial responsibility of classes of responsibility. providing for consideration of the bill h.r. 3362 to amend the patient protection and affordable care act to require transparency in the operation of benefit exchanges and providing for consideration of the bill h.r. 3811 to require notification of individuals of breaches of personally identifiable information through exchanges under the patient protection and affordable care act. the speaker pro tempore: referred to the house calendar and ordered printed. under the speaker's announced policy of january 3, 2013, the chair recognizes, mr. barr leta or 30 minutes.

mr. barletta: i ask that members may have five legislative days to include extraneous remarks. we are here today to talk about another unintended consequence of the affordable care act. we understand there is little appetite in this body to provide fixes to a flawed law. however, we believe that an unexpected and previously undetected problem with the law represents special and urgent circumstances. this really took me by surprise, the fact that the affordable care act could force volunteer fire companies to provide health insurance to their volunteers, or pay a fine. that would burden them with unbearable costs and possibly cause them to reduce the number of volunteers they have or shut

their doors all together. simply put, this is a public safety issue. this is a problem today because the internal revenue service currently treats volunteer firefighters as employees for federal tax purposes and under the affordable care act, if they have 50 or more employees and they work 30 hours a week, then the employers have to provide health insurance or pay a fine. and here's a key point that i want to make. some fire companies may hear about this and immediately think well, we only got 25 volunteers, so we're safe, we don't have 50. that may not necessarily be the case. some fire companies are considered part of their local government. that could mean that if you take the number of firefighters paid and unpaid now considered

employees by the i.r.s. and add them to the number of other public employees, such as highway workers, police, code enforcement officers, health officers, clerical officers, you can easily reach 50, even in a small town. this would be a very big deal in my home state of pennsylvania. 97% of our fire companies are either completely or mostly volunteers. nationally 91.7% of fire companies use at least some volunteers and 86.2% depend on all or mostly volunteers. those numbers come from the 2012 national fire department census conducted by the united states fire administration. so, i wrote a letter to the i.r.s., just like many of my colleagues here, and asked them for clarification.

to this point, as of this afternoon, we have gotten no reply from the internal revenue service. they said they are quote, reviewing it. this should be easy to clear up for the i.r.s. just say that volunteer firefighters are just that, volunteers. but we're still waiting. let's be clear about this. this wrinkle in the affordable care act will not provide health care to the uninsured, but will only shut down fire companies and cause a severe threat to public safety. at's why i introduced h.r. 3635, protecting emergency firefighters. the bill will exempt volunteer firefighters and volunteers providing emergency medical services from the employer mandate provision of the affordable care act. i was happy to learn that there

is a bipartisan senate bill that is a companion to mine. i hope we can see bipartisan support in both the house and in the senate and that we can get through this quickly so the president can sign it. mr. speaker, this problem with the affordable care act represents a clear and present danger to public safety. i would like to invite my colleagues to offer their thoughts about this problem and how it relates to their own districts. i would like to yield to the gentleman from pennsylvania, mr. fitzpatrick. mr. fitzpatrick: i thank my friend from pennsylvania for organizing this special order. i have to say that i never assumed it would be easy to get an answer quickly from a massive bureaucracy of the federal government like the internal revenue service, but i never thought it would be this hard

especially on the importance of safety of communities. my question to the previous implet r.s. chief has been a simple one, can you clarify the rules within the president's health care law as they relate to volunteer firefighters. as my colleagues have noted, confusion exists about the effects of the health care law's mandate and the i.r.s.'s definition of an employee that covers volunteer firefighters, yet the question goes unanswered and i can't offer any comfort to the volunteer fire departments. one way or the other, they want to know so they can keep on serving their communities. i would like to read two emails of many emails i heard in my district about the importance. harles, from a volunteer company. we are being penalized to

protect our community. there is no way that we or our community that supports us that can bear that cost for offering that insurance. we will be forced to shut down and our community to seek substantially, more costly and diminished fire protection alternatives. d from frank, chief of the langhorn fire company. the administration and i.r.s. have been aware of this but have not taken any steps to address it. the fire department has addressed many challenges and we will have our backs broken. waiting for an answer isn't good enough especially for people with jobs. and that's why i was proud to join with so many others gathered here this evening in introducing the protecting volunteer firefighters and

emergency responders act to address this problem. we remain optimistic that the administration will address our concerns and we hope the i.r.s. takes action swiftly and if not, we are prepared to do so in our house. with that, i yield back. mr. barletta: i yield to mr. dent. mr. dent: this will help clarify the fact that the vol unthe tear frifertse should not be called as aquifflelents under obamacare. it's been very clear to me after having meetings with many of my friends in lebanon county, pennsylvania where a number of firefighters came to speak to me

on this issue. very clear that the impact, potential impact of this idea of counting volunteer firefighters as full-time aquifflelnts will have an impact where volunteer firefighters do provide the bulk of the fire services. so it's clear to me that the health care law is riddled with so many problems. we knew this mandate was going to be a problem where it says if you have more than 50 employees, you have to provide health care benefits. those working more than 30 hours a week. i don't think anybody in their wildest imagination would have thought that a volunteer fire company would have been impacted by this and it raises a whole host of questions, to those firefighters, are they part of the municipal work force? we don't know answers to.

i hope we don't have to address the bar let -- barletta legislation as important as it is. we hope they will clarify the fact that that these volunteers are not full-time equivalents for the purpose of the health care law. that would be the easiest way out. absent a ruling, let's pass this bill. i'm proud to be a co-sponsor and i'm thrilled that lou bar let ver -- barletta -- important that we move forward with this legislation in the event that the i.r.s. fails to do its job and provide the clarity and guidance that so many of our volunteers. firefighters are protecting us and this employer mandate only makes that task that much more difficult and deny fire service

toll too many people across the country. with that, i yield back to mr. barr leta and i commend him for this important legislation. mr. barletta: i would like to yield to the gentleman from pennsylvania, mr. meehan. i thank the gentleman. and i want to join the gentleman and my colleagues not just from pennsylvania, but from across the nation, as we challenge thrm problem that has been emerged. and once again, it's symbolic of a number of things. when we heard demands of just pass it and we'll find out what's in it, well we have found out what's in it more and more frequently. and once again, we are beginning to see the implications ofal law that was not understood when it wased and becoming worse.

it began and starts here in this particular circumstance with the i.r.s. and the determination that volunteers are going to be considered to be employees, employees of municipalities in places like mine where the impact of this is very severe because if this kind of thing happens, think of a concept. these guys are getting up at 3:00 on cold evenings like this and answering the call and going out and putting out the fires in homes and neighborhoods like urs. they're going to be considered employees. that means the department will be fined if they choose not to provide health insurance urn the affordable kear act. or if they do pay for it, what's going to happen in communities like mine is that cost will be passed through. i sat and asked the mayor, i

have five separate volunteer fire companies in my own township, he estimated it would cost $4 million a year to provide that health care coverage to the members of the volunteer fire departments who are there. where do you think that $4 million is going to come from? it's going to come from the homeowners and the taxpayers in our district who are going to see their taxes raised to pay for this service for volunteers. this is how inscene it is. but the second part of what's so frustrating is the difficulty of dealing with this bureaucracy because some three months ago, like many of my colleagues, i wrote to the i.r.s. and asked for a simple clarification. why can't we just have a clear signal sent to these department which is rely on this kind of certainty to be able to make decisions as they move forward on the utilization of their

resources. these are the guys that are holding bake sales to find the money to put together the equipment and other kinds of needs that they have. an they've got to worry about whether they're going to be encumbered by this kind of bill. so if so -- so for so many reasons we need clarification, we need action and once again, it's not vust particular problems faced by this interpretation affecting communities across the nation. when i say across the nation, it's 750,000 volunteers in fire departments and 25,000 fire companies that are volunteers all across this nation. so it's touching every community in america. i join my colleagues in hope that we will be able to get some action from the i.r.s. and this administration so we don't have of of on the passage protect volunteer fire and emergency responders act to get the protection we need. i thank my colleague for his

leadership on this issue and i ield back. >> thank you and mr. speaker, if you can the bookkeeping nightmare to determine if the volunteers have worked 30 hours or not to be considered a full-time employee or less. do they count the times that they have their pager on as hours worked? or the time that they're listening to a scanner or the 12 our 24-hour shifts that many of the volunteers would have to work and who would record this? the fact that these men and women who are volunteers to protect the communities that they love would be forced into doing things that we just know they won do. mr. barletta: it would close fire houses or have volunteers who would no longer be volunteering their time. i would like to yield some time o the gentleman from ohio, mr.

-- >> i would like to thank the gentleman for yielding and thank mr. barletta for organizing this special order. we're here today because it's critical that we protect the volunteer fear fighters from the employer mandate. the i.r.s. has a history of treating volunteers as employees for tax purposes. if this is incorrectly mandated, volunteer fire stations could be forced to close or curtail their activities. mr. joyce: in my district, there are 225 fire departments, many all-volunteer forces. some of these departments will be forced to double in size due to the mandate. each one of these extra volunteers will need additional tushout deer gear at a cost of

$2,500 to $3,000 for each individual. before coming to congress i was a prosecutor for 25 years. i founded an organization called the blue coats. it's a charitable organization that provides relief services to he family members of police, firefighters who become disabled or lose their life in the call of duty. these are our friends and neighbors who go above and beyond the call of duty. we owe it to them to allow the brave men and women to carry out their duty. this will make sure they're protect from the employer mandate and can continue to serve. i thank mr. barletta for his leadership on this and urge my colleagues to support this legislation. mr. barletta: i thank the gentleman from ohio. i would like to yield to the gentlewoman from kansas.

>> i thank the gentleman. i group on -- grew up on a form in kansas. folks see it as a civic duty to pitch in where help is kneed. ms. jenkins: this means many folks choose to be volunteer firefighters. they give freely of their time and well being to help ensure that when disaster occurs, folks in the community are safe. i know this well because my daddy served as a kansas state fire marshal for many years. i spent significant time on the house floor talking about the unintended consequences of passing the president's health care law which allows the government to take control of the health care industry. well this is another one of those unintended consequences. it will penalize volunteer firefighters and e.m.t. ice by counting them as full-time

employees and possibly subjecting their departments to the employer mandate tax. penalizing volunteer fire departments should not be the intent of the president's health care law and the effects could be disastrous. kansas alone, there are 550 volunteer fire departments that are staffed by 13,000 volunteer firefighters. it would be a terrible mistake to jeopardize the status of these departments in the communities they serve by penalizing them under the affordable care act. given the commonsense nature of this legislation, and the bipartisan support of it, i remain committed to ensuring that this gets fixed. i yield back. thank you. mr. barletta: i thank the gentlewoman from kansas, i yield to the gentleman from kentucky, mr. barr. mr. barr: i thank the gentleman for his leadership on this important issue. unfortunately, mr. speaker, the

more we learn about obamacare, the more disappointing it becomes. the american people continue to be disappointed that president obama's health care law is not only wreaking havoc on their families, it's not only wreaking havoc on small businesses and the economy, but now it could be endangering our communities that rely on emergency response services provided by volunteer firefighters and e.m.t.'s. this is impacting volunteer firefighters in my home state of kentucky. just this morning despite a windchill of negative five degrees, firefighters in anderson county, kentucky, rushed to the aid of fellow citizens to batal barn fire threatening to spread to a near home. as their equipment and the water froze in extreme temperature, the firefighters took shifts to protect their community. it is not unusual for these

heroic men and women to routinely perform acts of bravery. it's also not unusual for them to hold pancake breakfasts and chili dinners to pay their electricity bills. they're now being asked to provide coverage under obamacare's costly employer mandate which anderson county fire chief mike barnes said might force them to lay off personnel and leave communities without adequate fire protection. while fire departments work tirelessly to provide essential safety services, we must do everything we can to ensure that our emergency services volunteers are not forced to be counted as full-time employees under obamacare, it's a cost they can't absorb. the project of obamacare is the project of the entire obama presidency. it's a project to determine whether or not big government can solve big problems. it's a project to determine whether or not the federal government can micromanage one

sixth of the american economy. with this issue, with these volunteer fire department, we find out once again that obamacare and the project it embodies is an abject failure. thank you very much, i yield back the balance of my time. mr. barletta: mr. speaker, can i have a time update, please? the speaker pro tempore: the gentleman has 10 minutes. mr. barletta: i would like to yield to the gentleman from new york, mr. collins. mr. collins: thank you. i'd like to thank my friend from pennsylvania for taking up this important and timely issue. mr. speaker, obamacare has proven to be the devastating law many of us predicted. the recrencht debacle on the online exchange rollout, the negative impact the law had on our economy, they seem to be only the beginning of the problems we face. every few weeks we hear more unintended consequences of the law. which are hurting the very

people the president and the democrats in congress promised to protect. mr. speaker, the i.r.s. considers volunteer emergency responders, including firefighters, employees for tax purposes. under this employee designation, large volunteer fire departments will be subject to obamacare, the employer mandate this will force them to provide health insurance to their volunteers or pay a significant penalty. these unnecessary costs will cripple the strong volunteer fire community that protects western new york and the rest of the country. november of last year, i wrote a letter to the acting commissioner of the i.r.s., seeking a specific exemption for volunteer responders but my office has yet to receive a reply. since the administration has not corrected this disservice to america's volunteer e.m.t.'s and firefighters, we must act

legislatively. i urge the house to take up h.r. 3685 and address this issue as soon as possible. we must protect our volunteer emergency service responders so they can continue to protect us. yield back. mr. barletta: i thank the gentleman from new york. i yield to the gentleman from mr. stivers. >> i thank the gentleman for yielding. the health care law could cause many communities to lose fire service because of an unintended consequence of the law that would treat these volunteer firefighters as mes and require them to have -- as employees and require them to have hushes. volunteer firefighters risk

their lives every day to provide our safety. in ohio, 70% of our fire departments are either fully or partially staffed by over 16,000 volunteer firefighters. mr. stivers: unfortunately, we could risk service in some of our communities if these communities are required to pay either a penalty or provide insurance. in fact, in my district, towns like mcconnellsville, ohio, use volunteer firefighters and raise money every year at a dinner, raise about $10,000 to help pay costs associated with their volunteer firefighters. if they had to pay penalties and insurance over top of that, it could cause them to lose service. i think these families and communities served by volunteer firefighters deserve the same service as other communities and shouldn't lose their service as a result of the health care law. so we don't want to put american families and ohio families at risk of losing their fire

service. that's why i'm a proud co-sponsor of h.r. 3685. i'd like to thank the gentleman for his leadership and i hope everyone will support the bill. mr. barletta: could i have a time update again? the speaker pro tempore: the gentleman has six minutes remaining. mr. bar tet la: i would like to yield to the gentleman from north carolina mr. meadows. mr. meadows: i thank the gentleman for yielding and thank him for his commonsense approach to solving a problem that was unintended. when it gets down to it, our firefighters and first responders deserve our support. they're missing birthdays, anniversaries, called out in the middle of the night to serve their communities. my communities in western north carolina are served by some of the greatest volunteers that a country could want. and here we are tonight, debating this, over something that should be commonsense. so i would just urge my

colleagues across the aisle to join with many of the fire chiefs that we talk to today, over 13 of them, from large counties and small counties alike, democrats and republicans, every one of them, without except, mr. speaker, said that we need to address this because it will hurt the people that they serve. enge it's time that we come together in this chamber and make sure that we correct a wrong that's been done. i thank you and i yield back. the speaker pro tempore: thank the gentleman. -- mr. barletta: i thank the gentleman. i would like to yield to the gentleman from west virginia, mr. mckinley. . kinlkinl thank you, congressman, for -- mr. mckinley: thank you, congressman, for your eadership on this issue. 95% of all fire departments in west virginia are staffed by volunteers. to pay for their training, their equipment, their operating costs theerks men and women are forced to raise money

through bake sales, pancake breakfasts, steak dinners and standing in the streets humbly at stop lights holding their boots out, asking people to put money in those boots. and now these financially strapped fire departments have been told that they may have to pay health care costs. mr. miller has projected that the added cost of paying for this health care, for these volunteers, will force some departments to close their doors, close their doors, putting families and businesses at risk. mr. speaker, cutting emergency services upon which rural americans depend is clearly an unintended consequence of obamacare. therefore we must exempt our volunteer emergency responders from this additional cost by bringing this bill to the floor as soon as possible. i yield back the balance of my time. mr. barletta: i thank the

gentleman from west virginia. i yield my time to the gentleman from pennsylvania, r. thompson. mr. thompson: i thank mr. barletta for yielding and sponsoring this. as a 30-year-plus state certified volunteer firefighter, e.m.t. and rescue technician, on behalf of my brother and sister who are firefighters, and rescue workers, e.m.t.'s, e.m.s. folks, thank you, thank you for your leadership on this. just very quickly. our volunteers are not employees. our volunteers are neighbors helping neighbors. our volunteers are community servants, they're trained professionals today, they're heroes, they're willing to run into -- walk into burning buildings when everyone else is running out. but they're not employees. and it's time for the obama administration and the i.r.s. to give us that clarification. and i yield back. mr. barletta: i thank the

gentleman from pennsylvania. i yield to the gentlewoman from . uth dakota mrs. noem: i rise today as a co-sponsor of h.r. 3685 and very proud to do. so protecting the volunteer firefighters and emergency reresponders act. in my home state of south dakota, there are nearly 8,000 volunteer firefighters and over 350 volunteer fire departments. these men and women are on the front lines protecting our families, our homes and our businesseses. and nearly every one of them fulfills that duty while holding down a full-time or a part-time job that often times covers their health insurance coverage. i had one constituent from rapid city drive home the point to me, talking about the shoestring budget that they operate on. and many departments raise money privately at community events, dinners, to make ends meet. requiring them to cover health insurance as the affordable care act may do would be extremely detrimental to these volunteer units and their communities. emergency service volunteers

are essential to our safety and well-being, for south dakota families and businesses. that's why i'm proud to support this bill and proud to speak on its behalf today. i thank the gentleman for yielding. mr. barletta: i thank the gentlewoman from south dakota. mr. speaker, i sincerely hope that we wouldn't have to be here this evening to take up this -- take up the valuable time of this body. but the flaws in the affordable care act and the deafening silence from the i.r.s. on a question so basic and obvious compels our attention. over 1,000 different groups have received waivers from the affordable care act, covering over three million people. don't our volunteer firefighters and the communities they serve and protect deserve at least the same consideration? mr. speaker, i yield back the balance of my time. the speaker pro tempore: the gentleman's time has expired. under the speaker's announced policy of january 3, 2013, the chair recognizes the gentleman from texas, mr. gohmert, for 30 minutes.

mr. gohmert: thank you, mr. speaker. i certainly want to thank my colleagues for bringing such an important issue to the floor for discussion. this is an important time in american history, for so many reasons. foreign policy is just in terrible shambles right now. but because today is january 8, and it's generally recognized , at 50 years ago on january 8 1964, president lyndon baines johnson declared a war on poverty. an article today from "the titled n times"

"that's rich, poverty level under obama breaks 50-year record" by dave boyer, says 50 years after president obama johnson started a $20 -- president johnson started a $20 trillion taxpayer funded war on poverty, the overall percentage of impoverished people in the united states has declined only slightly. and the poor have lost ground under president obama. mr. obama doesn't plan to commemorate the anniversary wednesday of johnson's speech in 1964, which gave rise to medicaid, head start and a broad range of other federal antipoverty programs. the president's only public event tuesday was a plea for congress to approve extended benefits for the long-term unemployed, another reminder of the persistent economic troubles during the obama --

during mr. obama's five years in office. what i think the american people are really looking for in 2014 is just a little bit of stability, mr. obama said. although the president often rails against income inequality in america, his policies have had little impact overall on poverty. a record 47 million americans receive food stamps, about 13 million more americans than when he took office. the poverty rate has stood at 15% for three consecutive years . the first time that has happened since the mid 1960's. -- poverty rate in 1965 was or 17.3%. it was 12.5% in 2007, before

the recession. the great recession, as it's called. about 50 million americans live below the poverty line, which the federal government defined in 2012 as an annual income of $23,492 for a family of four. president obama's antipoverty efforts, quote, are basically to give more people more free stuff, unquote, said robert rector, a specialist on welfare and poverty at the conservative heritage foundation. that's exactly the opposite of what johnson said, mr. rector said. johnson's goal was to make people prosperous and self-sufficient. the president's advisors defend his policies by saying they rescued the nation from the deep recession of 2009, saved the auto industry and reduced the jobless rate to 7% from a igh of 10% four years ago.

further, the president last month declared the widening gap between the rich and poor as the defining challenge of our time and democratic candidates are expected to pick up that thing on the campaign trail, rather than debate deficits or the complications of obamacare. in spite of the administration's antipoverty efforts, however, the government reported this week that poverty by some measures has been worse under president obama than it was under president george bush. w. bush. the u.s. census bureau reported that 31.6% of americans were in poverty for at least two months rom 2009 to 2011, a 4.5% increase over the prerecession

period of 2005 to 2007. of the 37.6 million people who were poor at the beginning of 009, 26.4% remained in poverty throughout the next 34 months, the report said. another 12.6 million people escaped poverty during that time, but 13.5 million more fell into poverty. mr. rector said, the war on poverty has been a failure, when measured by the overall amount of money spent and the poverty rates. that haven't changed significantly since johnson gave his speech. we've spent 20.7 -- $20.7 trillion on means-tested aid since that time and the poverty rate has pretty much -- is pretty much exactly where it was in the mid 1960's, he said. the liberal center on budget

and policy priorities said in a report that some trends have helped reduce poverty since the 1960's, including more americans completing high school and more women working outside the home. but the group said, other factors have contributed to persistent poverty, including -- to persist in poverty, including a tripling in the number of households led by a single parent. mr. rector said, too many government antipoverty programs still discourage marriage, factoring into statistics that show more than four in 10 children are born to unmarried parents. when the war on poverty started, about 6% of children were born outside of marriage, he said. oday that's 42%, a catastrophe. so, rather interesting. 50 years after the war on

poverty was declared, as an actual war, 20.7 -- $20.7 trillion, according to mr. rector, have been spent on since that aid time and basically we haven't changed anything except we've ot more children being born in broken, single-parent homes. it's certainly noteworthy that , ce the beginning of 2009 we've had 12.6 million people escape poverty, but 13.5 million fall into poverty. hat means we've had just under

million people worse off, falling into poverty, than were there when this president started with all the giveaway programs. $900 billion in so-called stimulus that turned out to be nothing more than crony on talism, spending money so-called green programs that turned brown rather quickly. after millions and hundreds of millions and billions of dollars were spent. he claims he saved the auto industry. well, actually there was a , posal by many economists led by an fdic former chair named isaacs, who made a proposal in late 2008, an alternative to tarp, and it

could have been used to do a more effective job of getting the auto industry on its feet. the proposal was, instead of nationalizing wall street, having the government buy private assets, which is nationalizing, government takeover, by another means, rather than the government nationalizing the auto industry, taking a big hunk of the auto industry, telling dealers which ones had to close their doors without due process of law, they were an unconstitutional taking, and to the embarrassment of this country and the great judges, those who were great, on the supreme court, and the ones that are great on there now, to

their total humiliation, this urt stood by and watched unconstitutional takings and did nothing. now, now it is true that during the unconstitutional illegal turning of the bankruptcy code upside down during the so-called saving of the auto industry, that ruth bader ginsburg to her credit but an auto deal on that was proposed. but the stay lapsed and the court did nothing which should have been to their incredible embarrassment. they knew that bankruptcy laws had been completely eviscerated, completely ignored, turned upside down. here were no proposed plans by

creditors. creditors were treated as -- secured creditors were treated as unsecured and against the law they were made unsecured, they had their security taken away and the government gave security illegally under the law to and the creditors supreme court didn't do anything but a 24-hour stay. i had hope for the court. i had hoped that they would do the right thing do, the constitutional, do the legal thing and they sat by. some say it was because they were privately scared by the administration that if they put onger than a 24-hour stay on the auto bailout, the auto plan,

that everybody in any way connected to the auto industry would lose their job and they would all -- it would all be the supreme court's fault, so what did they to? nothing. they should be humiliated. that they did nothing. violation of the law, violation of the constitution by unconstitutional takings of alers, auto dealers, sounded like the bankruptcy court was i.r.s. aponized, as the has. we had an auto task force with a czar, what a lovely name, coming from old russian days, of dictators, we had an auto task force czar and an auto task

force and at one time i believe as i recall, no one in the auto task force had ever been involved in auto manufacturing. the auto business. and as i recall, it may have been a majority of them, big majority, didn't even own cars. but regardless of whether they id or didn't, congress, some here, asked for transcripts of the meetings, who decided what dealers would lose their dealerships, we were never provided any transcripts and that should be to the embarrassment of congress. we should have demanded, we should have defunded white house activity until they came forward and produced what federal money that congress appropriated had produced. what had they done? we have the power to do that, we should have.

the american people were owed answers, especially those car dealers who lost their dealerships. save the auto industry. if we went back to the proposal that isaacs and other economists made, it was rather interesting. a number of us in congress thought it was the best idea we had heard proposed. basically, we knew there was at least $700 billion, some say clearly more than a trillion, american ned by citizens, american companies, that were earned in foreign countries and put in foreign banks, taxes were fully paid in those countries where it was earned, where it was banked, but they knew if they brought it into the united states, that a greedy federal government was going to yank another 30% or 40%

plus penalty and interest out of them and they would lose most -- much of the money if not most of the money, that they had earned and paid taxes on where it was earned. so the money was sitting on the sidelines in foreign countries. so basically, the proposal was, instead of nationalizing, socializing, whatever you want to call it, when the federal government buys private assets nd becomes the boss of private industries, instead of doing that, basically, in essence, the proposal was, why don't we have congress just say, if you bring that money, if you're an american citizen or american company, and you bring money in a foreign bank that would otherwise never come into the united states, bring it in here, and invest, whether it's in wall street, whatever congress

decided or the president suggested was a troubled entity, if you'll invest in that troubled industry, particularly the auto industry, then obviously you get ownership of stock, you become a player in that corporation, and the government gets to stay as a referee. not as a player and coach and referee. we would stay as referee and american citizens would bring their money in and bail out the auto industry but they would also own stock, which means they would change the directors, change the officers in all probability, and you'd get a change of direction in those companies and if they needed to go through bankruptcy, they would go through legitimately so that secured creditors remained secured, unsecured creditors were treated as unsecured

creditors, contracts that were destroying the automobile industry would be, could be, renegotiated in bankruptcy, and we really would have saved the auto industry. far better than this clumsy effort that was done. i had a fiat during the four years i was in the army. but why couldn't we have an erican manufacturer owned by americans? how embarrassing. but that's what this administration pushed, let's turn over, let's push an american auto industry into foreign hands, yeah, right you saved the american auto industry when actually under -- we had democrats in control of the house and senate when the

president took office, and he pretty much got anything he wanted but i would submit the auto industry would be a lot stronger today if commonsense solutions like those that former fdic chairman isaacs had proposed and other economists. and this economy would be much better on its way. and then instead of 12.6 million americans climbing out of poverty while another 13.5 million climbed into poverty, fell into poverty, because of , is administration's policies we should have been already on track. i know this administration loves to brag about how oil and gas production are up. but it's no thanks to them. they've used again weaponized the e.p.a., osha, department of justice, they've become the interior department. they've become as big an impediment as they possibly

could to the oil and gas industry in america. and what a lot of americans don't understand and frankly i was a little surprised myself to find out, that in the continental united states, 94% to 95% of the oil and gas wells are drilled or operated by independent oil and gas drillers. american companies. so when the president for the last five years has talked about how he was going after big oil, if you look at his proposals, he wants to eliminate tax deductions, the elimination of which would bankrupt most independent oil and gas operators, so what would that do? the 94% to 95% of the oil and gas wells in america would either cease or they would fall into the hands of the big major

oil companies that the president decrees. -- decries. well isn't that strange. big oil nd bad mouth and yet everything you propose and try to do seems like it's and getting cher rid of their competition. we hear the president call wall street executives fat cats, determined to do something about them, and yet when you look at the real book and the real story, four out of five gave 80% ofo democrats, about them, of wall street executives, donate to democrats and the president over republicans. well that's strange. why would he call them fat cats?

i don't know. why have they gotten richer and richer and richer and expanded the gap between the ultra rich and the ultra poor during this administration's last five years? the distance as this president has pointed out has gotten worse. what he's failed to do is say, because of my proposals, the things i have pushed, the things i have done, the poor and the rich have grown further and further apart. my rich friends mitigating circumstance rich donors have gotten richer than they might have ever dreamed an we've had more people fall into poverty than were able to climb out. that, 50 years after johnson's speech. but if it weren't for the policies in this war on poverty declared 50 years ago, it may well be that i would not have

ever run for congress because what got me thinking about it first as a state district judge back in texas was seeing more and more young women, single women, coming before me, single moms, charged with welfare fraud. under state law. a felony system of they came before me as a felony judge. and i heard the story over and ver and over, how as a young girl in high school, she was bored with high school and someone suggested, well why don't you just drop out of high school and have a baby. and then the government will send you a check. and they'll send you a check for every baby you have out of wedlock. drop out, have a baby. out of wedlock. get the check from the government. and the ones that came before me

would normally explain it wasn't enough. and so i thought well maybe if i have another baby and get another check, it will help me get out of the hole. but it didn't. one woman had had 15 kids, didn't even know where they all were. that was the most that i ever dealt with. and it began to really eat away with me that in the 1960's, the federal government desiring to dealing moms who were with deadbeat dads that weren't helping, decided, we'll help. we'll give a check for every child you can have out of wedlock. when the statistics made clear then and make clear now and every point in between that a young man or a young woman have a better chance of a financially

successful life if they fin herb high school. -- if they finish high school. normally, kids have a better chance of financial success if they finish college. that was until more recent days and i'm not sure what the statistics on that are now. but we know that clearly people are better off if they learn to read, they finish high school, have a high school diploma, or at least a g.e.d. that's why with most of the women, i didn't seend send any of those women to prison, i put them on prodation, i'd normally give them a tremendous amount, i think it was about 800 hours you could give as community service and then give 700 or 750 hours credit if they got a g.e.d. or high school diploma because i knew that was better for society if they finished high school and

if it was better for them, it would be better for society and they could be more successful. and after republicans took over election, in 1994 sworn in in 1995, one of the things they did was welfare reform. and they started requiring people to work who were on welfare. and when i was a freshman and went to harvard, we were given a presentation and i was shocked it was at harvard but that showed that single moms in -- single moms' income since the war on poverty began, when adjusted for inflation from the mid 1960's until 1995, was flatlined. . that incredible, incredibly expensive war on poverty didn't help single moms one iota in the long run.

oh, sure it helped them buy groceries and things at the time, but look at what happened . they were lured into ruts from which many of them could not extricate themselves successfully. but after there was a requirement for work that was put in by the -- after the contract with america, it was a contract for america, the graph showed that over the last nearly 10 years, income for single moms had taken a sharp rise upward over that entire period. and what happened when president obama came in? he wanted to wave and did wave -- waive and did waive the work requirement. could he do that? no, not legally. did he do that? yes, he did. could he rewrite immigration law and say, we'll legalize these folks meeting these requirements? no, not legally. did he do it?

yes, he did. and what did congress do about it? the senate was going to protect the president no matter what he did, is it the way it appeared and the way it continues to appear. so when the president brags about saving the auto industry, the auto industry would be a whole lot better off today if the bankruptcy had been done in accordance with bankruptcy law and the constitution and dealers had not had dealersships jerked away from them. for heaven's sake, it's not like the deeperships were costing the manufacturers anything. the dealers have to pay for their own expenses. yet he cost them royaly. -- royally. and now we know, because so many people have gotten desperate and just given up hope of getting employment, we

actually have more people not working now than ever. so we have those who are listed as unemployed and those that just have given up hope and they're not even counted in the unemployed anymore. the war on poverty has been a disaster. the best thing for americans is when they have a home that has a nuclear home and there's at least one or two people in that home who have a job, making money. america has always been about greatness. give us your tired, your poor, but not so we can put them on welfare and lure them into a hole they can never gut out of. it was so that they could get a job and earn a decent living and raise a family and instead we incentivized single homes,

so that after the war on poverty began we went from just over 6%, between 6% and 7% of all children being born to single moms to now over 40%, continuing to head toward 50%. why do the children have to suffer for the ignorance and stupidity of the government and those who meant well but just did stupid things? it's tragic. it shouldn't have to be that way. we owe the people of america so much better. homes, nuclear homes are a building block of this country and by it successful the grace of god i hope and pray we can pass legislation that gets us back to strong

homes and jobs and not more government giveaways and i keep wondering, mr. speaker, wouldn't it have been better in the 1960's to say, you know what, we realize you're dealing with a deadbeat dad, we know you'd be better off with a high school education, so nevada giving you a check for -- so instead of giving you a check for every child you can have out of wedlock, we give you daycare for that child so you finish high school and get your own job? the speaker pro tempore: the gentleman's time has expired. mr. gohmert: that would have made more difference for more americans and with that i yield back. the speaker pro tempore: without objection, i recognize the gentleman for a motion to adjourn. mr. gohmert: i move that we do now hereby adjourn. the speaker pro tempore: the question is on the motion to adjourn. those in favor say aye. those opposed, no. the ayes have it. the motion is adopted. accordingly, the house stands adjourned until

the american people are still asking the question. where are the jobs? and we've passed dozens of bills here in the house that continue to await action in the senate, that would help improve our economy, get americans back to work and help stimulate higher wages for the american people. as we continue our efforts over the course of this year, remember, our focus will continue to be on jobs. >> good morning. welcome back. now that january, 2014, is here, obamacare has become a reality for all americans and their families. the house this week is going to be approaching that issue. i think in a very deliberate and appropriate manner. one of the bills that we have coming to the floor is a bill that demands that the administration offer us real information and transparency about who is signing up on these websites. we need to know, the american

people need to know how this is working. is this going to work? or are these higher deductible, higher premiums only a sign of what is to come in terms of a diminished quality of care and increased costs? we'll also be bringing up a bill that has to do with the security of the website. i know that there have been reports this morning of several attorneys general in america bringing up the issue to secretary sebelius unsuccessfully, the security of the healthcare.gov website. unfortunately their pleas have gone unanswered by the secretary and i know that they have appealed directly to the president, asking for a meeting to understand what the risks are to their consumers and their states if they go on, talk to these navigators and offer up their personal information to the website. now, we're going to pass these bills. i'm hoping that the senate will take up these bills.

of course harry reid does not have the greatest track record in terms of bringing up house-passed bills. but i would certainly think those of you in the media would think it is a fair question to k about the accuracy and the thoroughness of the information that the administration care.com on health website. as the speaker said, we're going to continue to focus on our efforts to create a growing economy, there are over 200 bills sitting in the senate. harry reid can pick up some of those bills. there's some bipartisan bills sitting over there that could help job creation, so we don't have to accept the new normal that the democrats seem to want to accept as far as unemployment and job prospects. >> good morning and happy new year. as most americans go out over the new year, they put out new resolutions. i'm hopeful in the senate the new resolution is they'll bring up some of the bills that have passed inside the house.

it's become a frustration,s about you a -- frustration. but as we talk about moving forward, we talk about job creation, unemployment, many of those have passed inside the house and are sitting right inside the senate. as we begin the new year, just bring up a few of the bills and e'll start together. >> it is the first week of the new year and like millions of families all across this country, and we all sit down and look at what happened in 2013 and we also look at 2014 and we take a look at our budget and our savings and what our health care options are and what schools we want our kids to attend in the upcoming year. and also this year my family starts with a new addition, a new baby. and with that, as a mom, i can tell you, like all moms, you think about the potential that

this child has and the desire and the focus that you have to make sure that this -- your children have the opportunity to reach their full potential. and you want that for every person in this country. and so as i start the new year, certainly continue to focus on those policies that are going to put people back to work, are going to make sure that we can restore health care decisions for people all across this country. and that instead of reduction in the number of people that are in the work force, that we're actually increasing that. so those are my goals as i look forward to the new year, focusing on policies that are going to help people in every rea of their life. >> over the course of the last couple of weeks at home in kansas, i had the opportunity to visit a whole lot of small businesses. some mom and pops and some with hundreds of employees. and whether it was talking to the employees or the employers, the message was always the

same. folks want to just do their job and have government get out of their way. one employee i visited with said this, all we want is to do our job, without the government adding regulations every second. an employer said this, all i want to do is grow our company, but because of obamacare and all of the unknown consequences that lie behind the curtains, we can't hire new people. this obama economy is holding people back. the work force participation rate is the lowest that it's been in 40 years. obamacare is holding people back, higher taxes, more regulations, government picking winners and losers. so we look forward to this new year, we've got dozens of bills that have passed through the house that are sitting in the senate that could get us back on track. and this is not a republican

issue or a democrat issue. it's about getting this country back on the right track and etting americans back to work. >> good morning. i'm chris stewart. freshman member from utah. i know you all are very excited to hear from me today. i know the president and other democratic leaders would like to create the impression that we are coldhearted and unfeeling toward the plight of american workers. but i was a small business owner. and i cared for my employees like they were my own family. and i know that many of them are suffering through what has become the slowest economic recovery since the great depression. because the reality is that this president is failing american workers. here we are six years into this current administration, this presidency, and we're still talking about emergency unemployment benefits. if you want to restore hope for

the american worker, give them a job. if you want to help american families who are suffering through this long period, creating an environment where jobs are being created and the economy is growing, that's the answer here. we've passed dozens of legislation, pieces of legislation, that would create jobs for american workers, american families. they sit unattended on harry reid's desk. if the democratic leaders would give us the bill that's fiscally responsible, that addresses not only the current unemployment situation but job creation, we would work with them. i hope and frankly i think the american people hope that they're willing to do that and we look forward to working with them >> a couple of questions. about the budget. >> the budget is already past. i am hopeful that the house and the senate appropriators can

continue to do their work. we need to get the government funded for the fiscal year. i am looking forward to seeing the outcome. >> it is the anniversary of lbj's war on poverty. fight on poverty. >> he has a deep desire to deal with the issue of poverty. when you look at the issue of poverty, obviously there are lots of facets to it. one solution that we all know that works is a job. the fact that he has job forirements in his proposal single, able-bodied recipients, friendly that is a step in the right direction. former defense secretary bob gates has harsh words for

congress. what you think of the appropriateness of his comments? think his comments are protected under the first amendment just like anyone else. >> [inaudible] >> we're all concerned about those who had a difficult time trying to find a job. that is why we have passed dozens of bills to try to help improve the economy so that the jobs will be created. we are going to continue that effort. in the senate, i would be looking at ways to solve it will. that is to help the american people get the jobs that they want. >> if i could just finish -- when the white house the vote -- andf of staff called me discuss this issue of extended unemployment benefits, i made it clear that we would consider extending emergency unemployment

benefits. only if were provisions we could agree to to get our economy moving again and put the american people back to work. >> thank you. >> the head of the u.s. chamber hecommerce said today that would encourage congress to overhaul certain laws. senator howard dean talks about the u.s. political system. alsoor marco rubio discusses issues. and we have a discussion from this morning's washington journal. chris christie released a statement today saying that he know if his office was

involved in an act of retribution against a new jersey mayor for failing to endorse him in the 2013 gubernatorial race. he told the actions of a staffer, who apparently sense incriminating e-mails about a bridge to create traffic jams as unacceptable. people would be held responsible for their actions. it may have done some damage to a 2016 bid as a presidential candidate. the connection became apparent this morning when e-mails were revealed. now the u.s. chamber of commerce president talks about the need for congress to pass migration legislation and the role that his business organization will play. it is the state of american business conference.

>> we have some additional seats here people want to move in. good morning and welcome to the u.s. chamber of commerce. mckernan, president of the u.s. chamber of commerce foundation. it has become something of a tradition for us to kick off the year with this event. it is a chance to take stock of the challenges to come and the opportunities we have received. the u.s. chamber pot president tom donohue will outline some of the most significant ones in just a minute. before going on however, i want to introduce a special guest. he is a friend of the chamber

and he is a senator from ohio. as i said, he is a good friend. i would like to ask senator rob portman to stand. i appreciate you being here. [applause] as senator portman knows, the policy challenges that we face in 2014 are numerous, they are complex, and their consequential. voters will make their voices heard at the polls later this year. there will potentially be a huge bearing on the way our government works and policies our lawmakers enact. all of this against a backdrop of an economic recovery that has been slow and uneven. so we have our work cut out for us this year. the u.s. chamber is going to continue to marshall all of its tools and resources to educate the public, to influence our

leaders, to affect positive change where we needed, and to ensure that america lives up to all of her promise. technology will be central to those efforts. we will launch a revamped u.s. , including a new blog that will highlight the issues and policies the chamber is fighting for in washington and around the world. we will continue our work on free enterprise with a new focus, a focus that will carry the stories and messages of the benefits of the free enterprise system. carry to audiences beyond the beltway and outside the policy arena. we will get a glimpse of the major challenges and opportunities that lay ahead . who better to deliver that message than tom donohue?

there are few voices in the debate today that are as powerful, as recognized, and that effective as thompson. -- tom's. leaders outside and inside government look to him as the head of the chamber of commerce of the united states for leadership. truth, foro tom for implacable -- his unflappable optimism that america remains the best place in the world to do business and pursue opportunities and to achieve our dreams. we look forward to hearing from him today. i ask you to please join me in welcoming president and ceo of the u.s. chamber of commerce, donohue. [applause]

>> thank you very much. good morning ladies and gentlemen. thank you for coming to the chamber. occasionally when i do a major speech here, i think about this room and i think about the feeling. it is the history of the opening of the western room. this is the hall of flags for this courageous people who set achieve whatge to nobody thought they could achieve. the end result was the united states of america. keep that in mind a little bit today as we think about our own challenges and our own opportunities. assessing the state of american business and taking stock of the new year's challenges and opportunities, it is a tradition. we established in over 15 years ago. i am pleased to report that the

state of america's business is improving and our economy is gaining strength. --ce the great recession, since the great recession officially ended in july 2009, the american economy has doubled to regain its footing. the recovery has been the slowest and weakest since world war ii. the 21 million americans who are unemployed, underemployed, or have just given up looking for work have paid a very heavy price. they still are. middle-class families have not seen a decent increase in their real incomes for a long time. it is convenient to blame all of this on the severity of the downturn, but let's face facts. misguided government policies have also slowed our growth and caused americans to lose a lot of jobs.

we must fix these mistakes and not repeat them owing forward. we have an opportunity to turn the page. growth for 2013 will come in between 1.8% and 2.0%. we should do considerably better this year with growth accelerating to near 3.0%. recovery and overall household wealth is now surpassed -- has now surpassed its prerecession levels. this has boosted consumption which is leading to more business opportunity and investment and some new hiring. is also benefiting from continued strength in domestic energy production. and we have had improvements in trade.

a note to the president and congress, let businesses do more of both and we will generate more jobs and income than any government program can deliver. signs arethe positive some pretty big? 's -- some pretty big question marks. employers are concerned about the negative impact of obamacare. these issues are expected to hit a small business market even harder this year. many firms are stopping new hires and cutting workers hours because of the mandates of this new law. there are other uncertainties. they are driven chiefly by regulatory overreach and concerns about markets at home and abroad. we have an avalanche of confusing and conflicting regulations on energy, the environment, capital markets,

workplace activities, and how they impact business operations just as things are starting to come. what about europe? it continues to lie with very slow growth. any one of a dozen or more global hotspots could flare up at any time which could seriously, seriously impact our prospects. some of the uncertainty will always be with us. the question is how do we maintain and build upon the economic momentum that is finally taking hold. 2014, in 2014, the chamber will focus its capacities and its resources to advance a job growth and opportunity agenda that we believe will benefit all americans.

our plan includes ideas to expand trade, produce more domestic energy, and improve our infrastructure. together, this would create millions of good paying jobs. we will push for government reform to modernize the regulatory process that has not been updated since the time of harry truman. towill highlight the need make thoughtful changes in entitlements. we will fix the flaws in obamacare, curb lawsuit abuse, protect intellectual properties, and revitalize our capital. we must strike the right balance between legitimate investor protections and the freedom to innovate and take responsible risk. we are going to be a leader in efforts to improve education and

training. it is a disgrace that our country has allowed so many children to fall through the grass and so many of our workers to be left behind. 2014e determined to make the year that immigration reform is finally enacted. the chamber will pull out all the stops through grassroots lobbying, communications, politics, and partnerships with our friends in the unions and faith-based organizations and law enforcement groups and others to get this job done. you, it is will tell going to be very hard to a cop was much of anything this year. after all, don't you remember, it is an election year. we hope to turn that assumption on its year. we will turn the upcoming

elections into motivation for change. it is based on a simple theory. if you cannot make them see the light, then at least let's make them feel the heat. and the general elections, we will support candidates who want to work within the legislative process to solve the nation's problems and to understand that business is not the problem, business is a part of the solution. we previewed the aggressive efforts that the chamber has ,lans for the midterm elections with a recent victory in alabama's first district. there was also early advertising success and support of a pro- business candidate. 2014, the chamber will work to protect and expand a pro- business majority in the house and advance our position and our

influence in the senate. the business community understands what is at stake. they respect our political team, support our strategy, and understand the powerful impact our brand can have in pivotal elections. this means that we will have all the resources that we need to run an effective political program in 2014. the chamber will also be working on many other important activities outside of the congress and the administration. the national chamber litigation ,enter, our in-house law firm is going to be more active in the courts than ever before. we will be working with governors, mayors, state and local chambers, and many others, to improve educational efforts, training, job opportunities for

students and workers. our hiring heroes program will continue, a successful effort to find good jobs and new careers -- anderans of military military spouses. our institute for legal reform and workplace freedom initiative will be active in many states to stop lawsuit abuse and to counterbalance some of the policies of organized labor. meanwhile, our international division and global intellectual property center will be all over the world working to open markets and protect intellectual property that is developed and used here in the united states and around the world. i think you can see that the chamber's agenda is not only look -- national, but it is local and it is global. let me make some additional comments on other priorities that i have mentioned.

we have a great opportunity this year to spur jobs and growth by expanding international trade and investment. the administration is now more focused on trade. is following the completion of its landmark trade facilitation agreement. quicklys time to move to pass trade promotions. it will allow congress to set negotiating objectives for new trade pacts. branchires the executive to consult congress. it gives congress the final say on any trade agreement in the form of an upward down vote. bipartisan legislation has been written and will be introduced very soon. we are going to do all that we can to make the case for its approval. when new opportunities are created for us -- the

transpacific partnership. we are within striking distance of concluding an agreement that is critical to america's economic and strategic leadership in the world and in the world fastest-growing region. we must have a high quality agreement that opens market for manufacturers, farmers, and service providers. it must foster the digital and creative economies. include strong intellectual property protections in order to earn our own qualified support and that is something that comes from congress. the chamber will also leave the business community's efforts in tradet of a transatlantic and investment partnership. that will be with the european union. her member i said that they need -- remember i said that they

need economic stimulus and a big way. we are working on a trade in services agreement with an expansion of the wto information technology agreement. it is altogether and there are going to be more jobs and more economic growth and more global economic success -- we are pushing bilateral investment treaties with china and other countries as well as much-needed improvements in intellectual property protection, especially in india. with 20 years of massive success under the belt, it is time to move to -- move the north american partnership to a higher level. we miss work together to develop energy, attract manufacturing, and maintain a competitive position in the world that is second to none. whether a country does business around the world, or just in their neighborhood, the global economy, beyond her borders, now

has an impact. that is why the chamber takes very seriously its unique role in the global voice in american business. let's turn to another key part of our agenda. that is to advance and protect america's energy revolution. 2012, unconventional oil and billion indded $284 gdp, generated nearly $75 billion in federal and state tax revenue, and supported 2.1 million jobs. we have more conventional oil than the proven oil reserves of europe and asia combined, yet 87% of it remains off-limits to the oil and gas industry.

coalve enough recoverable to power our economy for more than 200 years. we must have this vital resource. we must have it safely and vigorously. we must continue to support and develop our nuclear energy, which today provides more than 20% of our power. we should continue smart investments and viable alternatives for renewable and greater energy efficiency. we june oh, that is the ultimate effort in protecting the environment. a new air energy abundance. we will have an unrivaled opportunity to transform the united states from a nation dependent on imports to a will get it-- we from people all over the world. -- wens that instead of

could be an exporter. we can attract new manufacturing from all over the world. over time, trillions and trillions of dollars of investment to our country. if the progress we have made so spite ofome largely in national policy, rather than because of it. we need to thoughtfully open more offshore and onshore efforts. we must remove and guard against unnecessary restrictions, delays, and regulations. there is no better example than the keystone xl pipeline. we have idled american workers and deeply offended our most important ally for the purpose of shallow domestic politics. the obamaying on

administration to put american jobs first, before special interest politics. we want to approve this politics -- approve this project now. it means the american business community, it means labor, it means people on both sides of the lyrical i'll. -- political aisle. next week we will unveil a new energy force in the u.s.. it is a new initiative which contains more than 60 recommendations to help our economies seasons energy ze itsial -- economy sei energy potential. i occurred to to watch this program and this announcement. -- encourage you to watch this program and this announcement. world andound the moving energy across the country requires a safe, seamless, and modern infrastructure.

families, workers, businesses, taurus, our environment, we all need the services and these facilities. we need to conserve energy and clean the air and save lives. for aamber will work multiyear reauthorization of the nation's surface transportation program. it expires at the end of september, and we are asking congress to complete its work on a major water resources bill as well as soon as possible. however, our nation would not have the money to invest in infrastructure, to invest in national defense, or much of anything else, until we stop ignoring what i call the big smelly elephant in the room. it is america's unsustainable entitlements program. we need to make it clear that we are not talking about taking

away from people who are depending on them. the recent improvement in the budget deficit is only temporary. we still have a serious overspending problem and we still have piles and piles of debt. we have entitlement programs that are the primary cause. laster the chamber began an effort to wake up the nation to this reality. it has not been easy. it has not been that successful. we are not going to rest or stop. this is the most predictable crisis in american history. in 10 years, that is 10 years from now, the total price tag, annually, for social security, medicare, medicaid will reach more than $3 trillion. we are basically going to increase federal spending

between this year and 10 years from now, between 2013 and 20 years from that by $2.5 trillion. the share of the budget to pay for these programs, plus the interest on our debt, will expand from 65% of the budget in 2020. to 76% . demographics are destiny. you cannot change them in the short term. there's no way around it stop americans are living longer. day anotherry 10,000 baby boomers retire. i will end up. over 17 years, we will have 77 million new retirees. month, congress and the president excuse me.

congress and the president will need to raise the debt ceiling yet again. under no circumstances canada's national plan b divide -- defaulted on. it would be the end of the american financial system stop under no circumstances can this nation risk default. repeallso time to entitlements. producing more energy can help generate lots of new revenues to help pay for entitlements. planonger economic growth is essential, but even those two things will not get us all the way there. it is time for our leaders to act like leaders. it is time for them to tell the american people the truth and to craft a fair, sensible plan to reform and say if these vital programs -- save these vital

programs. the entitlement crisis and rising health care costs are closely linked. obamacare, the chamber repeatedly warned congress and the administration of the many flaws in this massive legislation. by the way, we did not know about many of them. as nancy pelosi said, we will have to pass it to find out. the administration is obviously committed to keeping the law in place. we have been working pragmatically to fix those parts of obamacare that can be fixed, while doing everything possible to make regulations and mandates as manageable as possible for businesses. repeal, we will work to some of the onerous health care taxes, repeal delay or change

givemployer mandate, and companies and their employees more flexibility and choice of health insurance plans. and healthrganize care solutions council. we brought people in from outside the chamber, from all over the country. their report contains many useful and practical reform ideas. we will pursue them. if you would like a copy, just let us know. need toonsible parties work together and be more open to change. this nation still needs true health care reform. care reform that controls costs and improves quality and expand access to the uninsured. turning to our next priority, the nation is in the midst of a historic expansion of regulatory activity. federal agencies are churning

out 4000 new regulations every year. hasdodd frank bill alone 398 rules and only half, not even half of those, have been finalized over three years of work. i'm center for capital markets -- our center for capital markets is pursuing a practical agenda to ensure the job creators of access to capital. they are fixing or replacing some of the provisions of the dodd frank bill actively don't work as they were plan. they are also pursuing regulations to act on areas the law does not address. we are very concerned about the department of education's proposed gainful employment rule which discriminates against private sector colleges and

universities. this is wrong and this is unfair. can play a major role in helping our nation close a serious skills gap. we will do everything we can to change or stop the rule as it is currently written. another series regulatory challenge, which by the way is very abusive, but i think it is absurd, is the settlement process. with a wink and a nod, and interest group can sue and agree on a settlement. they find a court to bless it. then they collect legal fees courtesy of the american taxpayer with no transparency and little opportunity for public input. regulations are then imposed on businesses and our economy.

between 2009 in 2012, they set up with interest groups at least 60 times. some 100 new regulations. in 2014, the chamber will continue to work correctly with federal agencies and congress to win changes and improvements. when these efforts fall short, and they will, sometimes, and the regulators insist on overstepping their bounds, then we will do what we know how to do and we will head to the courts and see them. -- sue them. we are also making the case that the government needs to reform the way that it right that enacts regulations. the chamber is building support for legislation that would modernize the regulatory system, streamline the permitting

process, and blunt the abusive practices of suing and settling. the chamber will also continue to make a copy had the tax activity and ind priority. high priority. this is a complicated activity for the committee and the chamber. and for the business community. everyone likes comprehensive tax reform. in theory. --n their fear provision then their favor provision is up for elimination and they come to see us why those 3, 4, 5 provisions can't be touched. we need comprehensive program of reforms that lowers rates in both the corporate and individual side of the coat, and increases our mobile competitiveness. -- civil bylify my

a system that has been called a monstrosity. it will be a major fork is -- focus as well. we want to fight the expansion of lawsuits on every front. and and federal agencies, in states, and even around the globe where u.s. companies are being sued by american lawyers who have moved overseas to take their business to a place where they are not as aggressively challenge. i will beection year, very engaged in voter education efforts, on state attorney , and on aforts federal level, we hope to convince the house to pass an act that will attack rod -- fraud and doubled it being in the settlement process. we're asking the senate to follow suit. we also need reasonable reforms

in the false claims act. this is an important tool to uncover and punish fraud by government contractors. it is also being stretched and abused in ways that actually discourage companies from developing strong compliance systems or from coming forward with reports of mistakes or instances of wrongdoing. gentlemen, the proposal that i have highlighted will solidify our recovery. it will help create jobs and expand growth. before concluding, there is a third clause on the chamber's agenda that i would like to speak to. is all that opportunity. you may have noticed that there's been a lot of focus recently on the subject of inequality. it seems to me that what we should really be focused on is equality of opportunity.

how do we give everyone a fair shot at the american dream? ago, when, 50 years lyndon johnson pressed the poverty program in this country, that is exactly what you said. the quality of opportunity. who aremany americans successful and that should not be seen as a problem. the fact that many americans do not get a fair chance to succeed, that is the problem. let's focus on the real problem and do something about it. we know it doesn't work. getting stuck in stagnant growth , that has been the case for the last five years, that does not work. policiesdown on those that regulate and mandate, that will not work. let's talk about what will work.

totead of devising more ways spice up the existing economic let's go outc pie, and sees all the opportunities we have two x and economic pie. we must help those were struggling by ensuring that they have the educational skills, the incentives, and the opportunities to share that prosperity. many other nations have stumbled redistributionof and government dependency. they have promised equality of outcome. course that they follow that was doomed to fail. why would we ever want to go down that road? why would we want to follow those people who have looked at promisee -- america's

is one of equal opportunity. the real challenge is to get those who have left over -- been left out a chance to choose their own paths and give them the help they need. economic growth is actually critical, but it is not dependent yet. panacea. is not a revolution intive american education and training as well. it is beyond me how this nation can be so complacent while 30 30+ percent of our young people do not graduate from high school. million to do graduate have not learned how to properly rate, comprehend, right, and count. tragically that can be the

prescription for permanent .nequality where's the outrage? where's the urgency? where's the courage to challenge the status quo in our educational establishment? these skills gap we face today is a challenge that should unite , as political parties, and as a society. the state should adopt and implement the common core educational standards, which the chamber significantly supports. educationns of higher must all get directly and personally involved in this crisis. we must ensure that every young person learns basic skills and is properly equipped for jobs

and careers that are actually going to be used in the 21st century. immigration reform is important to expanding those opportunities. why? because throughout history immigrants have brought innovation, ideas, investments, dynamism to american enterprise. in terms of demographics, we need integration. we must do more to encourage all of our young people and many others to participate in american free enterprise. in a growing economy, with the proper schooling, and skills, there are many opportunities raised by one's own efforts to places you had not even dreamed of, even if you do not have a lot of fancy degrees a rich .elatives if you've heard nothing else

today that i said on the subject of equality, think about opportunity. if our nation does not get them amn serious about the millions of young people who drop out of skill and are unable to master basic skills and work habits, nothing else we do is going to set this country on the right course. sake, and hours, we cannot afford to fail. ladies and gentlemen, the chamber's job and agenda is built on the belief that our nation's days are not over. there still to come. and no othertry people, no other society is in such a position of strength and advantage as we do. right decisions

and adopting the necessary reforms, we can usher in a new area of economic prosperity. we can extend its benefits to all americans. tell that i am basically an optimistic fellow. let me tell you what i worry about most. i worry that for the first time in our history, we are in a situation where america is taking from the young in order to support the old. we are doing this by continuing to ignore the entitlement crisis. we are piling up trillions and trillions of dollars in new debt. we are tracking so many of our young people in failing schools and therefore denying them a fair shot at the american dream. the promise of america has always been that the older

generation will lead to the young a strong and better and more hopeful country. this is a promise that we can still keep. we must keep it. it all comes down to leadership. leadership in our government, leadership in our business, and leadership in every sector of american life. countryip that puts our and our future first. thank you very much. [applause] >> after his remarks, tom donohue took legends from reporters. this briefing is 45 minutes.

>> we just held our annual state of american business event. we will have a couple of it lasted, before we get our did. when you are recognized, one of the folks of the microphone will come to you. be patient and wait for them. that will help with the technical aspects of the event. identify who you are and what outlet you are with, that would also be appreciated. without further ado, tom donohue. >> thank you very much. we have more stuff up here. good morning again everyone. of youminutes ago, most were there, i delivered the chamber's annual state of american business address in the next room. if you missed it, there is a copy of the speech. joining me to answer questions today, it is a bit of a change of stop it is our senior vice president and economist, martin

regalia. bruce could not be with us at this time. he was so engaged and busy with what he was doing that he ruptured his appendix. he is doing very well, he is on the mend and you will see him here next time. you will be able to talk to him in the next few days. he sends his best and has challenged martin to do as well as he could. we will see. there are also a number of senior adviser sheer that here -- senior advisers here i can help with any lessons they get particularly complicated. that theer believes american economy is improving. it is gaining momentum. we expect growth to accelerate to about 3.0% by the end of this year. it does not mean all that we are out of the woods.

21 million americans are still on them white or underemployed -- are still unemployed or underemployed. i have not seen substantial increases in pay in recent years. obamacare, dodd frank, other laws and regulations still create a lot of uncertainty. our challenge now is to keep and expand the growth that we have finally achieved to create millions of jobs that we badly need. we will extend those benefits and opportunities of the recovery to all americans. the issue is, how do you do this? a trade motionng and then by moving forward on the free trade agreements that we have underway. secondly, by accelerating the energy revolution and putting millions and millions of americans to work. it is bringing manufacturing back to the u.s.. we have a lot of things to tell

you. will taken reform away jobs, it will provide a lot of innovation and investment. -- modernizing the regulatory system has been an ongoing issue. i think we can make some progress there. getting our fiscal house in order is absolutely critical to us. >> you heard me talk about all of that entitlement stop. there is a series of charts in place that make this point crystal clear. they are not our charts. their chart provided by the government of the united states of america. we have them all. ands a massive tax bill, there is a mass of rules and regulations. lots of people are wondering how they will get their health care. i am prepared to talk about that. we will not get rid of that bill. we will have to devise a way to

make it work. let me drive this point home. i think is inside, there is a lot we can do to make a bigger pie and put more people to work. if we do not get real serious about the millions of young people that we are leaving out of the system, if you cannot read and you cannot comprehend, if you can't write and you can't communicate, and if you cannot count and you cannot deal with modest technology, you cannot work. haveof the jobs that we are not available. jobsve taken 44% of the and manufacturing and we will take more. they are gone and we do not need them. computer technology, robotics, process engineering and supply chain management. all of that, it makes it so that you have to be educated if you

want to work here. for i take your questions, there's one other point. you may have noticed that there are going to be some elections and you may have noticed that we plan to be involved. we have started preparing for 2014 on election day 2012. we strengthen this institution, and we put more people in the field. we strengthened many many divisions of the chamber. we are prepared for this election. we are focusing on candidate selection early involvement in -- early voting we have to deal with, positively shaping races right from the beginning. we won in alabama, think god. there is a lot more to come. our response to this will be very significant in having said all that, i will be very happy

to take all of your questions. a couple i told you times before he even knew the answer, i made it up. now i know the answer. i will give it to marty. let's the right here. yes? could you be more specific about the fixes to the health care law that you would like to make? employer mandates are already delayed. >> i think when you look at the issues here, they come in four or five buckets. the tax and expense issues are very serious. second, the questions -- playing ai am not political game here. i'm talking about what we have to deal with.

one of the reasons only costs are going up is all the requirements that must be in play. that wee ever thought could fundamentally tell the health insurance people or whoever is running the government that you could provide all of those things with the same cost, there is no way to do that. and thevidual mandate come verymandate significant challenges that we did not know were there. when you put it all together, people are now getting plans that say, hey, your deductible .s got to be bigger your co-pays bigger. you are limited on which doctors uganda go to and which hospitals and so on. why is that? it is because of all of the requirements. i am not so sure it is a matter of taking scissors and cutting out whole sections of the

obamacare process. it is about looking at what the requirements are and who is paying for it and how do i get it. i was talking to -- it is a bad idea to go to personal things, but i was talking to my daughter in law last night. they belong to kaiser permanente and she was told that there will be at least -- she wanted to train should address and it will be a month before they can do that. they are so backed up with issues. i think what we have to do is delay whatever we have to delay for sure. periods of time and go through all the stuff that people are talking about. we must keep what works and fix what we can fix and get rid of some of the things that may not fit. broad ing a little those comments, but you know exactly what i am talking about. happy afterwards

to have all of the people send it out. the way the system is now, it is not the computers that are the problem, you can fix problems in computers. it is what you are putting in it. go ahead. >> i'm at abc. user 2014 is the year for immigration reform. can you outline what you plan to do either differently or the same? >> 2013 was right. we made a deal in the senate and we did that with the cooperative basis. we did a lot of other people. then we started working in the house where i believe we received very positive responses. it is a different way of doing business, 485 people, not just 100 of them. we brought in 600 people to one room. we broaden faith-based and folks

from all sorts of social activities. community leaders. tobrought businesspeople in see opportunities and to create jobs. we brought companies here that we may not have otherwise brought here. there going to do a lot of same and we are going to do it back home as well. i think democrats and republicans would like to go home and run for office with something they got done that is significant. i believe we are two thirds of the way there. the been encouraged by and i am of the house not discouraged every now and then when i wake up in the morning and see a story about some reason why it will not work. 435 people have to go home and run for office. i think we are going to get this done. ackerman with the wall

street journal. changes you wanted some to the dodd frank law on the regulatory side. could you elaborate on what specific parts are not workable in what might be changed? >> i think there is a little history here. legislation was written in a hurry. it was written by people who were mad. it was written by people who did not want to have responsibilities for what happened. forave been act is now almost three years. we made great success in negotiations with the sec and the other agencies. we have had great success in the courts. a real concern is that more than half of those rules have not been done.

we are trying to do is bring common sense to this. onhave all of the issues corporate governance. we are working on those. we have it all of the issues on the requirement on the financial institutions, and now we are in a difficult area where we are looking at insurance companies and other investment groups and some of these regulators are being treated like they when they don't do any of the things that banks do. gotten fogelman now, remember what happens. the agencies collectively set up a series of questions and sent them out to everybody that is being affected your might be .ffected they took back all of the responses and they did not note a proposed rule. be. is what it is going to

role -- vogel rule to raisenally meant questions about investments in what they could do with their own funds. it appears that it now affects every small and midsize bank any financial institution in the country. i will let marty talk about that in a second. bottom line is that we have to store -- sort our way out of this. some of the dodd frank stuff is fine. some of it, as i said, we will have to sort it out. the basic issue is that you want to get a mortgage. aur brother-in-law that has small company wants to be able to get a loan. people want to be able to invest -- invest their funds and plan for retirement. if you go to every bank in the country, you have five

regulatory industries living there. some want to lock the money up in the bank and some want to invest it. this is very complicated and we will be working on it for a while. access to capital for many small businesses is their primary concern. they have to deal with issues like health care. they do not know if they can get the capital to operate their businesses. the dodd frank rule and the role of the fat in the allocation of credit is a brand-new ballgame. i think we would like to see more clarification on where that is going, what the fed is going to do, and how they're going to administer that. i worked at the fed and the fed is very good with ink. they are very good at looking at the world's through a central bankers eyes. but they have not developed a different view to determine what is the best allocation. where should they intercede because there is an excessive risk, and where should they let the free market innovate and