she did it on her own because the media makes you feel like warm and fuzzy. you fight against the odds. a lawhonestly, women in firm or in politics, it is a male-dominated profession. that is the reality. women, the more young women who get involved, were very clear in their purpose, and want to articulate their view, they are women-- who are so confident. to actually get into law or health care is better, politics is a tough venue. women do need mentors to help guide them through the system. race was own difficult.

was another fellow involved who had money. i didn't. he was the favorite. i got the nomination, but those are the kinds of things -- i have to tell you, i have a character flaw. as soon as a woman tells me i can't do it or it won't do it, i have to do it. it is psychological. -- iyou have six kids don't want to push that character flaw on you, but it is my situation. mentoring and having that support is a wonderful goal. >> i don't think it is the characters flaw, i think it is a character string. -- character strengths. to the millions of people watching on c-span, thank you. >> we need you all. we need you very much to be involved. >> we have a couple gifts for

you. a couple years ago, we had our great conservative american women calendar. i want to give you our 2014 calendar. it is available on our website. i know you got one of these before, but it is a new version of our limited-edition coffee mug. >> no good deed goes unpunished. >> wonderful. and of course, a tote bag. >> thank you very much. we want future member your visit here today. frank meyer, a fellow new yorker, wrote this great book "independent freedom." i hope you have not gone entirely to e-books. and it you enjoy that will give you some inspiring thoughts. thank you very much.

>> great to have you here today. thank you for your service. [applause] much.nk you all very we have some lunch for you across the hallway. we are glad that you are here. thank you for your great work. >> tonight on c-span, a debate in the house today before they notify peopleto when the personal information is stolen from health-care exchanges.

later, former south dakota aboutr, tim daschle talks what faced congress this year. journal" willgton look at the u.s. marijuana laws. our guests are the marijuana a leadproject and cofounder. it discusses the budget and how they adapt to the security needs. atshington journal" live 7:00 a.m. eastern on c-span. former democratic national committee chair take the oath of office the other day to become the governor of virginia. we will carry the ceremony and the and a girl a dress here on

-span -- a not rural -- inaugural a dress here on c- span. span.dress here on c- $100,000 in total prizes with a grand prize of $5,000. get more info on the website. >> the house debated and passed a bill today to require health and human services to notify people when their personal information is stolen from health care exchanges. the obama administration issued a statement saying that it would expectationsstic and cause paperwork requirements that would not increase the security of the exchanges here in -- exchanges.

leading up to christmas, hackers stole millions of credit card numbers from the servers of retail giant target. i imagine at least a few here in this chamber may have had their own credit card replaced to prevent theft. what if target had not bothered to tell anyone? what if they had waited until people noticed fraudulent charges popping up on their statements? the damage would certainly be worse. it may shock some people to learn that there is no legal requirement that the department of health and human services notify an individual if his or her personal information is breached or improperly accessed through the affordable care act's exchanges. while h.h.s. has said it will notify individuals in such a

case, the american people have a right to know that their government is required by law to contact them if their personal information is compromised. h.r. 3811, the health exchange security and transparency act, would simply ensure americans receive notification from h.h.s. when their personally identifiable information has been compromised through the exchanges. specifically, the bill requires h.h.s. to notify individuals no later than two business days after discovery of a breach of an exchange system. since the disastrous rollout of the healthcare.gov website, connelly oversight has uncovered -- congressionally oversight has uncovered that this did not occur before the october 1 launch and that high-ranking administration officials were told of the security risk before the

website went live. eresa fryer, the chief information security officer running the exchange system even stated in a draft memo that the federal exchange, quote, does not reasonably meet security requirements and there is also no confidence that personal identifiable information will be protected, end quote. a recent article in "information week" entitled "2014 data breach industry forecast," which stated that, quote, the health care industry by far will be the most susceptible to publicly disclosed and widely scrutinized data breaches in 2014. according to "information week," the author of the study said he's basing this prediction at least partly on

reports of security risks posted by the healthcare.gov website, and the health insurance exchanges established by various states. the web infrastructure, to support health insurance reform, was, quote, put together too quickly and haphazardly, end quote. the most glaring problem for these sites has been their inability to keep up with consumer demand. the organizational infrastructure behind the implementation of obamacare is also complex, meaning that many parties have access to the personal data and could misuse or mishandle it. quote, so we have volume issues, security issues, multiple data handling points, all generally not good things for protecting protected health information and personal identity information, end quote. given the lack of security testing and the risks associated with healthcare.gov and the administration's

repeated misrepresentation of the website's readiness and functionality, h.r. 3811 is a reasonable step to ensure federal officials are required to notify individuals in case of a breach. thank you and i reserve the balance of my time. the speaker pro tempore: the gentleman reserves. the gentleman from new jersey is recognized. mr. pallone: thank you, mr. speaker. i yield myself such time as i may consume. the speaker pro tempore: the gentleman is recognized for as much time as he may consume. mr. pallone: thank you. first of all, mr. speaker, i want to point out that republicans are using out-of-context quotes from an administration or from administration officials to mislead the public about the security of healthcare.gov, the website. the same official they keep quoting went on to say, and i quote, the added protections we have put into place are best practices above and beyond what is usually recommended. and no website is 100% secure, but this effort to scare people from signing up for coverage is simply wrong.

mr. speaker, i'm afraid the bill before the house today is simply an effort by republicans to continue to impede the efforts of implementing the affordable care act by instilling misinformation and fear in the american public. it's an egregious bill that me d, in my opinion, -- let point this out, mr. speaker. yesterday i was in the rules committee, and i pointed out that to some extent i was pleased, i guess, that i don't see the republicans actually coming to the floor today to act on another repeal or outright repeal of the affordable care act. i mean, we're not seeing that we didn't see it in rules, and hopefully, i'll say to my colleague, the chairman of the health subcommittee, that we don't see it again either in the committee, in rules or on the floor. so maybe there's some progress here and at least the republicans are not out there trying to repeal the affordable care act anymore. at least i hope so. but they're now moving to these

other methods of trying to put fear into the public so they don't sign up or they don't go on the website, and the fact of the matter is these security measures that they're talking about are addressing a reality that's not there. do i think security measures are critical for the website? yes, absolutely. but let's recap the last few years since the a.c.a. passed. republicans claim the a.c.a. kills job. since the law has passed, we've added nearly eight million jobs. republicans claim that the a.c.a. causes health costs to increase. but the last four years we've seen the slowest health care cost growth in 50 years. republicans claim we need to address the deficit, but yet they repeal the law at every turn which increases the deficit by over $1.5 trillion. and now -- now they say that healthcare.gov is going to result in widespread breaches of people's information and that's simply not true. there has been no security

breach on healthcare.gov and no one has accessed personal information. no website, public or private, is 100% secure, but healthcare.gov is subject to district security standards. it's constantly monitored and tests and its security and privacy protections go beyond federal i.t. standards tds. and the health and human services has standards in place just like every government agency to notify individuals if their personal information is breached. so, mr. speaker, it's important that i note for everyone that house democrats are always previously supported legislation to require consumer notification in the event of a breach of government and private sector computer systems. we still do. by expressing concern for the mockery of this bill, it does not mean that i don't support requiring the administration of notifying individuals of breaches of their information, but this is not a serious effort to strengthen privacy laws or to strengthen the health care website.

it is to scare people away from going to the website and signing up for health care, and i urge members and the american public, do not be fooled by what they're doing. it's a good thing they're not seeking to outright repeal the affordable care act anymore. at least that appears to be the case based on what happened in rules the other night. but that doesn't mean that they're not going to continue with these efforts to try to make hey over security and other matters. you know, i can't stress enough that every one of the scare tactics they use, whether they're saying that the a.c.a. is going to increase the deficit, which it doesn't. it actually decreases the deficit. or whether they say it will increase health costs. it actually decreases health costs. this is just another one of those scare tactics. i just hope my colleagues, both democrats and republicans, are not fooled by this. so i reserve the balance of my time, mr. speaker. the speaker pro tempore: the gentleman from new jersey reserves.

the gentleman from pennsylvania. mr. pitts: mr. speaker, at this time i'm pleased to yield two minutes to the distinguished chairman of the oversight and government reform committee, mr. issa from california. the speaker pro tempore: the gentleman from california is recognized for two minutes. mr. issa: thank you, mr. speaker. famously franklin delano roosevelt we have nothing to fear but fear itself. that's not true here, and sadly the last speaker is entitled to his opinion but the facts did not bear out his conclusions. the truth is that actual interviews and depositions taken of the highest ranking people that helped develop this website, both public and private, shows there was no end-to-end testing. it did not meet the spirit of any definition of a secure website. in fact, the highest ranking person, theresa fryer, on

september 20, was unwilling to recommend this site go active and said under oath that if it had been within her authority to stop it she would have. it is very clear, even from the white house's statements in the last few days, that they claim to have mitigated or have a plan to mitigate significant security risk. the american people need to understand a plan to mitigate means they have not mitigated security risk. this is the situation we're in in which no private sector company, including target, would go live with a system that has known failures and unknown failures because of a failure to do end-to-end. all we're asking for is since secretary sebelius, under oath, has been wrong under multiple occasions and i called for her to make clear that she made false statements, the fact is what we need is a law that

makes it clear they should do the right thing, not say they have always done the right thing and they will do the right thing because in the case of healthcare defensive.gov, they -- healthcare.gov, they had not done security tests and there were not mitigated. that's the facts, mr. speaker. and i ask support for this bill. the speaker pro tempore: the gentleman from pennsylvania reserves. the gentleman from new jersey. mr. pallone: mr. speaker, i yield three minutes to the gentlewoman from colorado, ms. degette. the speaker pro tempore: the gentlewoman from colorado is recognized for three minutes. ms. degette: thank you, mr. speaker. some mornings in congress i wake up and i say, now here's a solution in search of a problem and this morning is one of those days. we're hearing about how the website's not secure, how there can be security breaches. ironically, we're hearing about

security breaches with a private company, target, and how terrible it is and that's why we have to do a bill, but in fact we haven't seen any security breaches with healthcare.gov or the websites around the affordable care act. and i want to stress that. i'm the ranking democrat on the oversight and investigation subcommittee of energy and commerce, and we've had a number of hearings and we've had classified briefings. and here's some information that is not classified information. there has been not one successful hack into healthcare.gov. let me say that again. nobody has successfully been able to breach healthcare.gov. furthermore, as we recently learned in a briefing, healthcare.gov, interestingly, has not been targeted any more than any other federal website for hackers. so why are we doing this bill?

i got to associate myself with my ranking member's comments, mr. pallone, that the only reason we could be doing this bill is to try to have a chilling effect against people signing up to get health insurance through the website. and sloat me say again, there have been no successful breaches -- and so let me say again, there have been no successful breaches of healthcare.gov. if we wanted to do a bill to strengthen privacy, i would do that. i think that is one of the most important things we can do. but if you look at the details of this bill, there's nothing here that furthers consumer notification or consumer privacy. first of all, there's no exemption or consideration of law enforcement. what if law enforcement found a potential breach and needed to investigate it? what if they needed more than 48 hours to make sure that in fact there was a breach before they notified people? consider the harm that would

occur if law enforcement did not have enough time and resources to fully investigate a security breach before it went public. the consequences of incorrect notification could make the problem worse. secondly, based on how the bill is drafted, if there is a data breach in this state that's chosen to run its own exchange, like my home state of colorado, h.h.s. seems to bear an unnecessary burden of reporting the breach in the state exchange having nothing to do with the federal exchange. might i remind my colleagues, state exchanges are entirely independent from healthcare.gov. h.h.s. does not rupp them. h.h.s. did not build their website. and h.h.s. did not develop their security protocols. so why should h.h.s. have to get involved in these state agencies? i ask for an additional minute, mr. chairman. mr. pallone: i yield an additional minute.

the speaker pro tempore: the gentlelady is recognized. ms. degette: securities for these state exchanges should be the responsibility of the states that are running them. i could go on and on. there are more problems with this bill than pages in the bill. so let's get real. instead of bringing legislation like this to the floor without any committee action, why can't we sit down together in a bipartisan way and improve the way the affordable care act works for our constituents? that's what our constituents want. they want affordable health insurance. they want health care. and they don't want unwarranted scare tactics and attacks. let's sit down. let's work together. let's fix this legislation and let's get real. i yield back. the speaker pro tempore: the gentlelady yields back. the gentleman from new jersey reserves. the gentleman from pennsylvania. mr. pitts: mr. speaker, i'm pleased at this time to yield two minutes to the distinguished gentlelady from tennessee, mrs. black, who is an expert on this issue. the speaker pro tempore: the gentlelady from tennessee is recognized for two minutes. mrs. black: thank you, mr.

speaker. i rise today in support of this legislation to provide basic diligence to the federal obamacare exchange. if someone's personal information has been breached, the federal government should be accountable and be required to notify them so they can protect themselves from either identity theft or cyberthreats. this is common sense. as notification is required on most of the state exchanges, and there are laws that require information that has been breached by private businesses to notify people as well. yet when h.h.s. was asked to insert notification provisions into the time rule for obamacare, they specifically declined to do so. this is an astonishing failure on the part of the administration but sadly characteristic how they have proceeded at every turn with the implementation of this train wreck legislation. healthcare.gov has been

described by this former social security administrator as a hacker's dream. last month h.h.s. reported that there had been 32 security incidences since its launch. the federal exchange foningsly puts at risk americans' names, addresses, phone numbers, dates of birth, email addresses, and even social security numbers. last month i introduced similar data breach notification legislation and i'm pleased to join my house colleagues now to pass this important bill. mr. speaker, i can't imagine explaining to my constituents that i voted against this commonsense measure to protect the hardworking americans from identity theft and cyberattacks. this is why i urge my colleagues to support this bill. i yield back the balance of my time. the speaker pro tempore: the gentlelady yields back. the gentleman from pennsylvania reserves. the gentleman from new jersey. mr. pallone: mr. speaker, i yield three minutes to the ranking member of the house committee on oversight and government reform, the gentleman from maryland, mr.

cummings. the speaker pro tempore: the gentleman from maryland is recognized for three minutes. mr. cummings: thank you very much, mr. speaker. i thank the distinguished gentleman from new jersey for yielding. i'd like to make two very, very simple points. first, the affordable care act is working. hello? it is working. it went into full effect, if you didn't know, on january 1, and now millions, millions of people are getting health insurance they did not have before. imagine what this means to families. not only are they receiving critical medical care, but they have the security of knowing they will not go bankrupt if they get into an accident or they get sick. that's major. the law put in place key protections for consumers. insurance companies are now prohibited from discriminating

against people with cancer, diabetes, or other pre-existing conditions. and some young people in my district said, well, congressman, i'm not worried about pre-existing conditions. i told them you keep on living. they may not charge high prices for women. and millions of people are now eceiving free preventive care. there are also huge financial benefits. health insurance companies are sending rebate checks to millions of people. since the law was passed we have seen the lowest growth in health care costs in 50 years. if we repeal the law today, it would increase our deficit by more than $1.5 trillion. despite all of these results, republicans are still obsessed

with killing the law. since they do not do it legislatively, they have shifted to a different tactic. scaring people away from the website. so my second point is this. there have been no successful of ity breaches healthcare.gov. let me say that again, there have been no successful security breaches of healthcare.gov. nobody's personal information has been hacked. all week republicans have been trying to make their case for this bill by quote interesting a memo drafted by the chief information security officer at c.m.s. about concerns before the website was launched. but they omit one critical fact. this official never sent the

memo. it was a draft. and she never gave it to anyone, including her own supervisor. how do we know this? because she was interviewed by the oversight committee, both republican and democratic staff, weeks ago -- one more minute? mr. pallone: i yield an additional minute. the speaker pro tempore: the gentleman is recognized. mr. cummings: and she told us this herself. her draft memo did not take into account mitigation strategies put in place days that follow. importantly, she also told the committee she is satisfied with the security testing being conducted. when asked to describe the security measures now in place, she called them, and i quote, and i quote, best practices above and beyond what is usually recommended, end of quote. these are important facts for the american people to know. but the republicans disregard them and omit them because they want to undermine the claims.

many of us would support efforts to threaten requirements for the entire federal government and private sector to notify consumers of breaches, but today's bill does not do that. today's bill is the latest attempt to attack the affordable care act and deprive millions of americans of health care they deserve. with that, mr. speaker, i yield back. the speaker pro tempore: the gentleman's time has expired. the gentleman from new jersey. testimony the gentleman from pennsylvania. mr. pitts: i'm pleased to yield one minute to the distinguished whip of the house, kevin mccarthy of california. the speaker pro tempore: the gentleman from california is recognized for one minute. mr. mccarthy: i rise today in support of the health exchange security and transparency act. the reason why we are passing this important legislation today is that credible and documented fears have been raised that this hastily constructed obamacare exchange website could jeopardize the security of our most sensitive personal information. one of the many reasons so many worry about obamacare is that

it injects government, and government bureaucrats, into the most personal sphere of our lives -- our health care. in new an alarming ways. nothing can turn a life upside-down more quickly than identity theft. it is our duty as members of congress to do everything in our power to protect and inform americans about these potential devastating events. i'm confident that this new -- that this is one of the law's most negative consequence that is both sides of the aisle can come together an agree must be addressed. absent this full repeal instilling this type of transparency and accountability into obamacare is a worthy first stefment i urge my democratic friends to join with us today. i yield back the balance of my time. the speaker pro tempore: the gentleman's time has expired. the gentleman from pennsylvania reserves. the gentleman from new jersey. mr. pallone: mr. speaker, i yield myself such time as i may consume. the speaker pro tempore: the gentleman is recognized for as much time as he may consume. mr. pallone: mr. speaker, republicans continue to attack

the website, healthcare.gov, and this attack on the security of the website is the latest in a long line of scare tactics attempting to limit enrollment and coverage under the a.c.a. it just bothers me so much because as you know now we have, i think, about six million people who have obtained coverage. 2.1 private insurance through the website. and things really are moving now in terms of more and more people signing up and getting coverage. i just wish that rather than use these scare tactics and try to talk about security concerns that don't exist that they would focus and work with us and actually trying to sign people up and get people to have health insurance, which is the goal of the affordable care act. the bill suggests that there are serious security problems at healthcare.gov. but by establishing this unique requirement, which doesn't apply to other government websites or private workplace,

and h.h.s. is required to notify individuals within two business days if their personal information is known to be stolen or unlawfully accessed from a marketplace computer system. if this is a good idea, why is the g.o.p. bill limiting this requirement to only marketplace websites? it's just a missed opportunity. democrats firmly support strong data security and breach notification legislation. if the republicans were serious about the security of personally identical identification on the web, instead of bringing up this bill, they could have reached out to democrats and developed a bipartisan bill. indeed, when democrats were in the majority the democrat-run house passed bipartisan legislation to provide for consumer notification in the event of a breach was introduced in the previous congress, and the republicans are still playing political games. if they want to work with us to bring to the floor a serious bipartisan data security breach

notification legislation, then they should simply do it. and the rules committee the other, one of the members asked on the republican side if the administration has a position on the bill. and the administration clearly opposes the bill. they put out an s.a.p. which states that the administration believes personally identical information should be protected wherever it resides and that all americans deserve to know if that information has been improperly exposed. the federal government has already put in place an effective and efeshent system r securing personally -- system for securing personal information. i wish i could convince my colleagues. again i'm happy this is not an outright repeal and not wasting time on that, but we are still wasting time with this notion of the security breach that hasn't happened when secure measures are already in place. and again this is being brought up in the first week. no effort to reach out to us in any way to try to deal with it. it has a two-day notification

requirement which is simply not workable. i cannot stress enough that we as democrats would like to address this issue, but it's not being addressed. it's just being done as a way of trying to fuel -- scare the public into signing on the website. which is so unfortunate because people want to sign up. they shouldn't be in fear if they sign up somehow there's going to be a security breach. i reserve the balance of my time. the speaker pro tempore: the gentleman from new jersey reserves. the gentleman from pennsylvania. mr. pitts: mr. speaker, at this time i'm pleased to yield four minutes to a distinguished member of the health subcommittee, mr. bilirakis from florida. the speaker pro tempore: the gentleman from florida is recognized for four minutes. mr. bilirakis: thank you, mr. speaker, thank you, mr. chairman. mr. speaker, i rise today in support of the health exchange security and transparency act. i'm pleased to be an original co-sponsor of this legislation. i'm glad we are addressing this very important issue on the house floor today. each day i hear from constituents in florida's 12th congressional district who are

experiencing the negative impacts of obamacare. contrary to the very promises the law was sold on, my constituents have lost their health care coverage, have seen their premiums rise, and were forced to choose new doctors. the president's signature law was never really ready for primetime. the energy and commerce committee, which i am a member of, has held numerous hearings into the failed website and the lack of testing that occurred to ensure the website was properly secured. in these hearings, we have learned that 30% to 40% of the website isn't built. end-to-end security testing wasn't performed. c.m.s.'s own chief security information officer recommended against an authority to operate because of cybersecurity concerns. her memo even stated there is

no confidence that personal identifiable information will be protected, and it was the administer of c.m.s., not the chief information officer, to sign off on the a.t.o. mr. speaker, does this sound like a safe and secure website? millions of americans were forced to sign up for the exchanges in order to avoid individual mandate fines, and now each of these individuals, including myself and many in this chamber, are potential victims of identity theft. while privacy in the health care realm is typically protected by hipaa, it does not apply to h.h.s. or the federally run exchanges. furthermore, data notification is critical to maintaining security, and individuals should be notified when their personal information could be compromised. yet, in the final rules, h.h.s.

published in august it did not finalize a data breach notification rule. instead it stated it is up to c.m.s. to determine whether a risk of harm exists and if individuals need to be notified. a government bureaucrat, mr. speaker, should not be given the power to determine whether the loss of personally identifiable information constitutes harm. we do not know how many breaches have occurred on healthcare.gov. whether due to the accidental sharing of information or otherwise, because there is currently no public disclosure requirement. the health care exchanges security and trarns parentsy act will bring transparency to the administration and the health care exchanges. i strongly urge my colleagues in the house to support this bill today, and i urge all, of course, our colleagues in the senate to swiftly take up this bill so that we may pass it into law.

i thank you, mr. speaker, and i yield back. the speaker pro tempore: scombrafment florida yields back. the gentleman from -- the gentleman from florida yields back. the gentleman from pennsylvania reserves. the gentleman from new jersey is recognized. mr. pallone: thank you, mr. speaker. i yield such time as he may consume to the ranking member of the energy and commerce committee, mr. waxman. the speaker pro tempore: the gentleman from california is recognized for as much time as he may consume. mr. waxman: thank you very much, mr. speaker. the previous speaker in this debate said we don't know how many times there was a breach of security on the health care website. well, we do know how many breaches of security there were, how many successful attacks there were. zero. there have been no successful breaches of healthcare.gov. mr. speaker, since october 1, more than six million americans signed up for health insurance. six million. four million are enrolled in medicaid, two million in private coverage.

anyway you look at it, that's good news. now, republicans seem eager to find some bad news. they want to keep talking about website problems and stir up phony fears that personal information is not secure on this site. they're looking for the bad news because the facts are against them. republicans said the affordable care act would kill jobs. we hear it over and over again. kill jobs. but since the law was passed, we have added nearly eight million jobs. republicans said this law would cause health care costs to skyrocket, but we've had four straight years of the slowest health care cost growth in 50 years. republicans said the a.c.a. would explode the deficit, but repealing the law, which they tried to do over 40 times on this floor, would increase the deficit by over $1.5 trillion.

so today house republicans are resorting to scare tactics. they're bringing up a poorly thought out bill based on false premise that healthcare.gov is not secure. he truth is, i'll say it again, there have been no successful security attacks on healthcare.gov. now, while no site, public or private, is 100% secure, healthcare.gov is subject to strict security standards. it's constantly monitored and tested. it has procedures in place to notify consumers in the event of a breach. we can't say the same thing for private websites. we all heard about target having their website atacked successfully. no one's asking that they make disclosures. and in fact, mr. speaker, this is not a serious attempt to address this issue because it

doesn't set any standards on private insurance companies. private insurance companies hold far more private data than the exchanges. mr. speaker, as chairman i worked on bipartisan legislation to set tough data privacy and security standards on government and private sector computer systems. house democrats have supported these efforts, but this bill is not serious. did you know this bill was never even considered in committee? it doesn't allow for any delay in reporting to protect ongoing law enforcement investigations. the bill creates a host of technical and administrative problems. this is purely a message bill. that's all we do these days. in between recesses we have message bills on the floor of the house, and we get nothing done. this is purely a message bill,

and the message is one that is designed to mislead. i urge a no vote. the speaker pro tempore: the gentleman yields back. the gentleman from new jersey reserves. the gentleman from pennsylvania. mr. pitts: mr. speaker, at this time i'm pleased to yield one minute to our distinguished majority leader, eric cantor of virginia. the speaker pro tempore: the gentleman from virginia is recognized. mr. cantor: i thank the speaker and i thank the gentleman from pennsylvania. mr. speaker, i want to rise in support of the health exchange security and transparency act, and if i could just take a few seconds to respond to the allegations put forward by the gentleman from california, the ranking member on the energy and commerce committee. i want to just make a point, mr. speaker. there is a real difference between users of a retailer's website and users of healthcare.gov. because those who choose to go on a website of a retailer in the private sector do so at

their choice. the people of this country, all of the american people now, if they go to healthcare.gov, they are being forced to go to healthcare.gov. and so for the gentleman to sit here and say, well, we don't require this, that or the other of industries or banks or anything else, which i would beg to differ there are certainly requirements in law and duties owed by banks to their shareholders, customers and the rest, but i would say to the gentleman, this is a situation where the law at hand is requiring individuals, mandating them to go to this site. and so contrary to the allegations made by the gentleman, what this bill does is it just asks the administration, it requires it o provide 48 hours' notice

within a breach of health care information, financial data. all it says is, the administration has to let victims of identity theft or information theft to be notified. that's it. this is a good government bill. why do we want to wait until there is a data breach? you know, i would ask the gentleman to look to a quote by c.m.s.'s own chief information security officer, teresa fryer. she said, quote, the health care industry by far -- excuse me. she said the federal exchange does not reasonably meet security requirements. that's what the chief cybersecurity officer at the agency says. the exchange does not meet security requirements. now, the expeerian credit

bureau said the -- experian credit bureau said it would be he widely scrutinized security breaches of 2014. if we know this, why wouldn't we take precautions to help people? that's all this bill does. it says if there is a risk of data breach, we should afford people opportunity to take corrective action immediately. that's it. there's no message in there this is just trying to help people. so i would say to the gentleman, if he would just set aside the partisan attacks for once, let's help people. let's go about the way we should be and putting people first here. we disagree on this law and requiring health care the way government says we should require, yes, but i think we can all agree we want to help people and we want to make sure

that they can keep their information safe. that's all this bill is about. so i want to thank chairman fred upton, chairman joe pitts and the members serving on the committees who've been conducting oversight on the issue for the past year, including the science committee, the homeland security and the oversight and government reform committees. congresswoman diane black, certainly the gentleman from florida, gus bilirakis, and representative kerry bentivolio have all worked hard on this issue. i commend them for their efforts to just help people for once, and with that i urge adoption and passage of the bill and i yield back. the speaker pro tempore: the gentleman yields back. the gentleman from pennsylvania reserves. the gentleman from new jersey is now recognized. mr. pallone: mr. speaker, i yield such time as he may consume to mr. waxman. the speaker pro tempore: the gentleman is recognized for as .uch time a as he may consume mr. waxman: mr. speaker, i won't take that much time. i'll respond to the comments.

no one is forced to go on this website. they could go to brokers. but once you sign up for insurance, whether it's public or private, your information is in their web. it's in their computer system. and that is true for private insurance. does this bill do anything about breaches of private insurance? no. now, the majority leader used a quote from someone in the administration i think to mislead the public about the security of the healthcare.gov, but that same official -- the same official said, at the end of the quote, the added protections we put into place are best practices above and beyond what is usually recommended. no website is 100% secure, but this effort to scare people from signing up for coverage is wrong. if we do care about breaches and security, it ought to apply to private and public

insurance, not just when you sign up but when they hold your data. thank you. i yield back. the speaker pro tempore: the gentleman yields back. the gentleman from new jersey reserves. the gentleman from pennsylvania is recognized. mr. pitts: mr. speaker, at this time i'm pleased to yield three minutes to the distinguished chairman of the energy and commerce committee, the gentleman from michigan, mr. upton. the speaker pro tempore: the gentleman from michigan is recognized for three minutes. mr. upton: thank you, mr. speaker. i rise in strong support of this legislation, h.r. 3811, the health exchange security 2014. nsparency act of security and transparency, both are critically important to every american. and the public expects and deserves to have them both when it comes to health care. sadly i believe that the administration has failed to deliver. this important bill seeks to provide peace of mind to folks in michigan and across the country who submitted personal information to a federal health insurance exchange. americans have the right to know in the event that their

sensitive personal information provided to an exchange is compromised, especially as it is the law's individual mandate that forces them to purchase the government-approved health care coverage. why wouldn't we want the public to know and be alerted right away? just this morning on cnbc, breaking news, c.e.o. of target apparently is indicating as many as 70 million americans, their customers may have had their private information stolen. would it have been right for target just to sit on that information or was it appropriate for them to try and put the word out so they at least the consumers have the right information? let me tell you what this bill does. it's a commonsense bill. it's going to require that the administration, that they promptly inform individuals within two business days if their personal information has been stolen or unlawfully accessed through an exchange. .

and the thoughtful oversight we have uncovered troubling information regarding the security of the health law's exchanges. so what this bill does is preventive medicine. do we want to wait until the horse is out of the barn before we take action? i don't think so. we found that the administration did not perform a full security control assessment before healthcare.gov opened for business on october 1. we also learned just days before healthcare.gov went live, senior officials at h.h.s. expressed serious concerns regarding the protection of personally identifiable information that was entered into their website. these facts on top of the fact that the administration is repeatedly misrepresented the functionality and the readiness the health care law raise significant questions regarding the security of healthcare.gov and the information available

in the exchanges. a few weeks ago the administration is willing to let millions of americans lose their health insurance despite the president's solemn promise that they could keep their health plan if they liked it. and it took the house acting in a bipartisan legislative manner for the administration to confess that, yes, it had broken their promise. now the administration is saying that it opposes this requirement. that it notify americans when personal information is stolen. the self-proclaimed most transparent -- could i have an additional 30 seconds? mr. pitts: an additional 30 seconds. joip the gentleman is recognized. mr. upton: so the self-proclaim, most transparent administration in history has come out against transparency. i'm sorry. republicans and democrats may disagree on the merits of the president's health care law, and we do, but i think that we should all agree that americans deserve to be notified if that personal information is put at risk by the law. i want to thank chairman pitts

for putting security and transparency above politics. and i urge my colleagues in a bipartisan way to support this bill this morning. i yield back the balance of my time. the speaker pro tempore: the gentleman's time has expired. the gentleman from pennsylvania reserves. the gentleman from new jersey is recognized. mr. pallone: thank you, mr. speaker. i yield two minutes to the vice chair of the democratic caucus, the gentleman from new york, mr. crowley. the speaker pro tempore: the gentleman is recognized for two minutes. mr. crowley: i thank my friend from new jersey for yielding he time. it's a shame that we are here once again wasting time on legislation like this. it doesn't even solve the issues the republicans claim they are trying to address. the truth is the bill we are considering today is far from a productive answer to anything. it's just yet another scare tactic to discourage people from obtaining health care.

that's right. here's a news flash for you, the republicans want to stop people from obtaining health care. i don't know why we should expect anything less or anything else from a party with such little vision. instead of creating opportunity, they become the party that shuts things down. they shut down the government. they shut down unemployment insurance. for people who are desperately trying to find work. they tried preetedly to shut down the affordable care act. as -- repeatedly to shut down the affordable care act. as a matter of fact, 47 times, 47 times they have attempted to shut down the affordable care act. heck, they are even shutting down bridges in new jersey. the fact is it seems like their agenda is just about shutting down things that actually work for american families. republicans can't just slam the

door shut again and again on the american people. it's time to end this shutdown mentality once and for all here in washington and get back to working on issues of concern to the entire nation. mr. pallone, with that i yield back the balance of my time. the speaker pro tempore: the gentleman yields back. the gentleman from new jersey reserves. the gentleman from pennsylvania is recognized. mr. pitts: mr. speaker, may i inquire of the time remaining? the speaker pro tempore: the gentleman has 13 minutes. and 6 1/2 for mr. pallone from new jersey. mr. pitts: at this time, mr. speaker, i'm pleased to yield two minutes to the vice chair of the energy and commerce committee, the gentlelady from tennessee, mrs. blackburn. the speaker pro tempore: the gentlelady from tennessee is recognized for two minutes. mrs. blackburn: thank you, mr. speaker. when is this administration finally going to start paying attention to the warning signs? when career staff at o.m.b. warned the administration that solyndra wasn't ready for prime time they moved forward anyway.

and lost hardworking taxpayers a half billion dollars. when private consultants told the white house and h.h.s. officials last spring that there were problems with healthcare.gov, they moved forward anyway. when c.m.s. sent a memo just four days before healthcare.gov went live and warned about inherent security risks, their terminology, the administration moved forward anyway. so their failed policy of forward is costing us money and is getting people into trouble. this is what we are hearing from an expieron report. america's personal information is at high risk on healthcare.gov. there is a great opportunity for data breach. this is something we can stop. the bill today does that. it is simple.

it addresses the problem. what it does very simply, and i commend the gentleman from pennsylvania for the health exchange security and are transparency act. it accomplishes what this administration has failed to do. and to make a standard practice. to inform e h.h.s. anyone if their information has been breached and they have to do this within two business days. they can't hide it. they can't spin it. they've got to tell you. -- tell you if your information has been breached. we do this because if the administration is going to require us, and, yes, to my colleagues, it is a requirement to use healthcare.gov, at least they can notify you when your information has been breached. i yield back. the speaker pro tempore: the gentlelady from tennessee's time has expired.

the gentleman from pennsylvania reserves. the gentleman from new jersey is recognized. mr. pallone: thank you, mr. speaker. i yield three minutes to the gentlewoman from texas, ms. sheila jackson lee. the speaker pro tempore: the gentlewoman from texas is recognized for three minutes. ms. jackson lee: i thank the distinguished gentleman. i thank the manager of this legislation. i thank the good intentions of our colleagues. i want to pause for a moment, mr. pallone, and just simply say that although these are important issues, as a member of the house judiciary committee i helped draft the privacy -- the patriot act, and business records 215, and now looking to constrain the collection of megadata. i accept the importance of privacy for the american people, but i pause for just a moment to ask my colleagues. if we have enough time today to actually pass the extension of the unemployment benefits, 1.3 million people, 12,000 in my own community would like us to stay here and make sure we get that done. i hope that my friends on the other side of the aisle will

accept the challenge, republicans putting an exchange of the unemployment benefits on the floor to help unemployed americans. but this is an important issue as well. i do want to say that our friends have not documented any breach on personal and private ta of those individuals that have accessed the affordable care act, which are 9 million plus and growing. now we come one by one with legislation that has not gone through regular order, not gone through the committee process, has very good intentions, but in actuality may be overly burdensome. because, mr. speaker, there is no bar, no bar, no limit for h.h.s. to provide notice for any possible breach within seconds or minutes or hours after the incident may have occurred. frankly, now this legislation

doesn't go far enough. let me give you a few facts. the affordable care act implementation of healthcare.gov is under the authority of h.h.s. h.h.s. assigned the task for developing healthcare.gov to agency center for medicare and medicaid services. under the federal privacy act, all federal agencies must draft regulations to protect personally identifiable information under their control. the federal privacy act was established by an act of congress in concurrence of the executive branch to balance a government's need to maintain personal information on americans with the right of individuals to be protected against unwarranted invasions of their privacy. the privacy act came as a direct result of the work of the committee following revelations that the government had routinely used records on citizens for political purposes to engage in surveillance or retaliatory activity. a series of laws passed by the congress to protect the privacy of americans.

computer records management was of such grave concern to this congress, members of congress, following investigation into disclosure that then president nixon had used his high office to seek out means to exact retribution against political enemies by causing harm to careers, reputations, as well as financial injury to the i.r.s. can i get 30 seconds? a minute? mr. pallone: i yield the gentlewoman an additional minute. the speaker pro tempore: the gentlewoman is recognized. ms. jackson lee: so we have had an intense interest in records and computers and the rights of 1973. s which was in h.h.s. is chiefly responsible why the united states is the first nation in the world to draft a prife say law. they know what to do. there is a code of fair information practices which has five principles, there must be no personal data record keeping system whose very existence is secret. that is to not use the data of people in the wrong way. there is a c.m.s. policy for

privacy act. i offer this for the record. the base line of what my point is is that h.h.s. was at the core of developing privacy. there have been no known breaches. there is no bar for s.c.m.s. and h.h.s. to tell the american public or individual immediately. this bill will add burmsome requirements and may, and may distract or take away from legal and lawful and law enforcement investigations. i ask that we look at this together in a bipartisan manner. i believe in privacy. i hope we can work together, mr. pallone, and make this what it should be. i think the american people are -- the speaker pro tempore: the gentlelady's time has expired. the gentleman from new jersey reserves. the gentleman from pennsylvania is recognized. mr. pitts: mr. speaker, at this time i'm pleased to yield one minute to the distinguished chairman of the republican study committee, member of the energy and commerce committee, mr. scalise of louisiana. the speaker pro tempore: the gentleman from louisiana is recognized for one minute. mr. scalise: i thank the gentleman from pennsylvania for

yielding and bringing the health exchange security and transparency act. mr. speaker, all we are saying here is if american families' personal information is stolen through this website, through the exchange website, they ought to be notified by the administration that their data was breached. of course you got the white house actually coming out and saying they would veto this bill. what does the obama administration have against protecting the privacy of american families' personal information? you've got administration officials that testified before our committees. chief information security officer actually said there is also no confidence that personal identifiable information will be protected. if they can't assure the protection -- by the way the individual mandate says this is not an option for american families. they have to go through this exchange to get insurance that's approved by the government. so if the government's going to mandate it, we don't want the government to mandate that they have to go do this, but the government is man -- mandating it. if it is, they ought to be sure

the data is protected and if it's breached they ought to notify them it's happened. we need to pass this legislation, put this transparency into law. pass this bill. i yield back the balance of my time. the speaker pro tempore: the gentleman's time has expired. the gentleman from pennsylvania reserves. the gentleman from new jersey. mr. pallone: mr. speaker, i yield myself such time as i may consume. the speaker pro tempore: the gentleman is recognized for as much time as he may consume. he has 2 1/2 minutes left on his time. mr. pallone: mr. speaker, once again i hear my colleagues on the other side repeating the same things that are not accurate. you do not have to go on healthcare.gov to sign up for health insurance. mr. waxman said you can go to a private insurance broker. you can call an 800 number. you can go through various nonprofits. they keep repeating the same thing. we keep having to say there have been no breaches. the gentleman mentioned the administration. the administration's statement which i read before and i'll only summarize part of it now it says that the federal government has already put in place an efficient system for

securing personally identifiable information in the health insurance marketplace. the administration opposes the bill because it would create unrealistic and costly paperwork requirements that do not improve the safety or security of personally identifiable information in the health insurance marketplace. the purpose of the bill i understand, but it's simply not necessary. and it's just making people fearful of signing up. i reserve the balance of my time. the speaker pro tempore: the gentleman from new jersey reserves. the gentleman from pennsylvania. mr. pitts: mr. speaker, at this time i'm pleased to yield one minute to the distinguished gentleman from colorado, mr. gardner. the speaker pro tempore: the gentleman from colorado is recognized for one minute. mr. gardner: i thank the speaker and i thank the chairman of the committee for his good work. i would remind our colleagues when you call the 800 number to sign up for the exchange policies, as was heard before, our committee and testimony, the people who get that number on that phone call then turn around and use the healthcare.gov site, the information, website, to input that information. so you are forced to go through this site.

a couple weeks ago i received this letter, we are writing to you because of electronic file containing your personal information cannot be accounted for. the file included two or more of the following, your name, home mailing address, and social security number. the letter went on to say, we wanted to alert you to the potential that someone not authorized to access the records could have seen this information. this letter came from the state of colorado. they could not hold on to state employee's private personal identification information. all we're asking for is that we protect the privacy, the security of the american people. to oppose this bill, to issue a veto threat, if the site is secure, they'll never receive the notice. if it's not, we will have acted to protect the american people. with that, mr. chairman, i yield back. the speaker pro tempore: the gentleman's time has expired. the gentleman from pennsylvania reserves. the gentleman from new jersey is recognized.

mr. pallone: mr. speaker, i'll reserve. i only have a minute left. i don't know how many speakers you have left. the speaker pro tempore: the gentleman from new jersey reserves. the gentleman from ennsylvania. you're recognized. mr. pitts: mr. speaker, i'm pleased to yield one minute to e gentleman from ohio, mr. jordan. >> the speaker pro tempore: the gentleman is recognized for one minute. mr. jordan: they said no complete end testing was done. the chief information officer recommended not launching it. her boss launched it anyway. the administration knew this website wasn't ready. they launched it anyway. the whole country now knows it wasn't ready. they put millions of people's personal information at risk and they did it for political reasons. now all we're asking is when there's a breach, when there's

a problem, at least tell the american citizens. you already launched a website for political reasons that you knew wasn't ready, put millions of americans' personal information at risk. you already did that. now we're saying if there is a problem at least tell them. that's all we're saying. the administration will say, we'll veto that bill if that happens. you've got to be kidding me. you've got to be kidding me. that's all what this is about. i want to commend mr. pitts, the committee and those individuals that put work into this. it's a good piece of legislation and i would urge a yes vote. the speaker pro tempore: the gentleman's time has expired. the gentleman from pennsylvania reserves. the gentleman from new jersey continue to reserve? the gentleman from new jersey continues to reserve. the gentleman from pennsylvania. mr. pitts: mr. speaker, at this time i'm pleased to yield to ms. jenkins, the gentlelady from kansas. the speaker pro tempore: the gentlelady from kansas is recognized for one minute. ms. jenkins: i thank the gentleman for yielding. personal information is an issue. and many kansans are worried about them not protecting them

from security breaches and fraud. experts have repeatedly raised red flags about the security of the information people are submitting to the obamacare exchanges and are a former social security administrator even described the website as a hacker's dream. important questions about the website's security remain unanswered, and americans, especially those that lost their plans due to the president's health care law, deserves a peace of mind that their information is safe from cyberthieves. i urge my colleagues to support this bill that requires h.h.s. to notify americans within two business days if their personal information has been compromised. much more is required of private sector companies whose products are not mandated by law. at least the administration can do is notify americans that their information has been stolen or unlawfully accessed through the obamacare exchange. i yield back. the speaker pro tempore: the gentlelady's time has expired. the gentleman from pennsylvania reserve. the gentleman from new jersey

continues to reserve. the gentleman from pennsylvania. mr. pitts: mr. speaker, at this time i'm pleased to yield one minute to the gentlelady from indiana, mrs. walorski. the speaker pro tempore: the gentlelady from indiana is recognized for one minute. mrs. walorski: i support this legislation to enact much-needed consumer protections for healthcare.gov. it's unfair that the department of h.h.s. launched healthcare.gov without performing a complete security control assessment. installing the necessary safeguards for the exchanges should have been the administration's top priority. now congress has an opportunity to pass a law that simply requires h.h.s. to notify consumers within two business days if their personal information's unlawfully accessed or stolen. in dage tal world, americans deserve to know their information is compromised so they can immediately take action to protect themselves. last summer i traveled my entire district in indiana to notify and to make aware cybersecurity issues and steps to avoid identity theft.

hoosiers, seniors shared with me frightening stories about fraud and scam. they need to know that healthcare.gov will not contribute to the cybersecurity dilemma. this is the kind of representation they deserve in congress. i urge my colleagues to support this commonsense law to safeguard our personal information. i yield back. the speaker pro tempore: the gentlelady's time has expired. the gentleman from new jersey continues to reserve. the gentleman from pennsylvania. mr. pitts: we're prepared to close. the speaker pro tempore: the gentleman from new jersey is now recognized. mr. pallone: thank you. thank you, mr. speaker. i just want to say again, i'm not saying i'm opposed to some kind of security notification. in fact, it already exists and there is a protocol in place with the department of health and human services. the point is that this republican bill is simply not necessary. that security already exists. the fact of the matter is there have not been any security breaches, and once again we're simply seeing the republicans get up and try to scare people

so they don't go and use healthcare.gov, the website. what we really like to see, mr. speaker, is a day on both sides of the aisle we can get up and talk about legislation that continues to provide outreach and encourage people to sign up for the website and get the health insurance they need. i still honestly believe that both -- most republicans and democrats collectively would like to see most americans covered with health insurance. that was the purpose of the affordable care act. and i think my one optimistic note today could be, at least we're not seeing another bill on the floor that would seek to repeal the affordable care act. hopefully that's some recognition on the republican side that the affordable care act is actually accomplishing its goal of trying to cover most americans, if not all americans. so with that, mr. speaker, i will say i would urge my colleagues to oppose this unnecessary bill and i yield back the balance of my time.

the speaker pro tempore: the gentleman from new jersey yields back. the gentleman from pennsylvania. mr. pitts: mr. speaker, some have argued that requiring h.h.s. to report a data breach that is known to have resulted in a loss of personal identifiable information within two days is too burdensome for the department. in fact, the administration opposes this legislation for, quote, paperwork requirements, end quote. i'm frankly shocked that any member of this body would put workload concerns of h.h.s. ahead of their constituents' right to know if their data has been breached when many of our constituents are essentially being forced to shop through these exchanges. in addition, c.m.s. has stated that states and other nonexchange entities are required to report data breaches to the department within one hour to h.h.s. if h.h.s. believes one hour is enough time to report, then they should certainly be able to tell our constituents within two days after knowing an individual's information was breached through an exchange.

our constituents deserve to know if their personal information has been breached. that is all the underlying bill requires. our constituents have a right to know. they should have peace of mind and we should be protecting them, the victims, not the bureaucracy. i urge my colleagues to support this >> as congress wraps up its first full week and gets set for another full week of legislative action, the headline on "national journal" is unemployment deal falls flat, putting senate back in irons. one of the authors joins us from phone, michael catalini. where do things stand on the unemployment bill in the senate? >> on monday the senate comes back at 2:00 and we expect a vote on an amendment by senator jack reed who was one of the original co-sponsors of the three-month unemployment insurance extension and what happened last week was we saw

deals coming together to pay for unemployment extensions for one year which is something republicans said they wanted to see but late last evening what we saw was that deal fell to pieces and the reason it fell to pieces was because the republicans are upset that senator majority leader harry reid was not allowing them to have amendments on the three- month extension. >> as the week starts, they have six senators who are in favor of moving forward with debate and now at the end of the week they're asking for more debate on amendments? >> what those six senators had said after they voted to advance the bill was they did that on the condition that or the understanding that they would get a vote on two of their amendments. reid denied them votes on their amendments saying some were not germane and ruled out any of the amendments having to do with defunding the affordable care act.

so they have 24 pending amendments and many of them were germane so what we'll see on monday is a vote on the reid amendment that would pay for it for a year and pay for it through an extension of the sequestration cuts for another year as well as a provision backed by republican from ohio that would prevent so-called double dipping in uninsurance benefits and disability benefits but republicans are balking at that because they're saying they have 23 other amendments they want to offer and reid isn't allowing them a vote on those. >> off the floor of the senate and the house, negotiations have been continuing on the 2014 federal budget with the january 15 deadline looming. it looks as if the house next week will take up at least a short-term continuing resolution. what's the status of that longer term, that omnibus spending bill?

>> what we know about that is, lawmakers, two top appropriators, harold rogers in the house and a democrat from maryland report that progress is ongoing, they're in town working on the so-called omnibus measure and they expect to have something by the end of next week and the short-term goes through saturday and we expect to see an omnibus presented in time for members to vote and get out of town for the weekend. >> the only other item in the house that we know of is a bill dealing with the healthcare law. the house working on their first at least of what's expected to be a number more in 2014 next week in the house. what a that's bill look like? >> this bill will require the administration to report to congress on users, americans interact with healthcare.gov as you and your listeners know, the

rollout was very bumpy for healthcare.gov and this is an attempt by republican lawmakers to shine a light of transparency on the bill and they want the administration to report how the website is faring. >> you can follow michael catalini's reporting at nationaljournal.com and on twitter. thanks for joining us. >> of both chambers will return on monday. the agenda, short-term resolutions to keep the government funded past wednesday. they plan to take up the spending bill to keep the government funded through 2014. watch coverage here on c-span. they gavel is back in it to continue work on a bill to extend benefits that expired in

december. it will consider a vote on the nomination of robert wilkins to be a circuit judge for the d c circuit. >> former democratic national chair takes the oath of office on saturday to become governor of virginia. we will bring you the ceremony and his address from richmond beginning at 12:05 p.m. here on c-span. >> it disappointed all of us to see the deterioration of security in iraq. i spent a lot of my life over there. two 2010 -- 2010, i was there as we reduce the level of violence and sectarian violence. we left in place where it was capable to move forward.

because of several political issues, internal to iraq, the current situation isn't as a fault into something -- dissolved into something concern. this is something we have to be cognizant of as we look across the middle easels. in syria and , itnon, and inside of iraq is this sectarian, potential conflict between sunnis and shiites. the exploitation of that by nonstate actors like al qaeda and other organizations will try to take advantage of this. >> this weekend, army chief of staff looks at the security situation in the middle east and the future of the u.s. army. saturday morning at 10:00 eastern. live on c-span 2. political strategist honor the love and war relationship on book tv. prohibition and the

rise of the gangster. >> now a round table lookup the 2014 election cycle in the upcoming midterm elections with a group is strategists. chris cillizza moderates the discussion hosted by the group center forward. p center forward. >> if everyone could take a seat, we would get started with the program. thank you all for coming today to the first quarterly event or 2014. i know it's bad weather. we originally federal the store late last year and it snowed. we originally scheduled this event for late last year. academicgs together find a common ground

and common sense solution the challenges. i would like to first introduce our moderator. we are delighted to have chris cillizza today. he's a premier political journalist. the washingtonh post. he covers congress, the white house, and all things white house in his blog, the fix. roll call.m the cookthat, aat political report.

join me in welcoming him today. [applause] is republicant strategist dan hazelwood. he is nationally recognized for his work in the areas of targeting andegy, persuasion theodore and -- persuasion. i'm not sure if i know what that is. targeted creative communications a republican based marketing company in alexandria, virginia. it works with campaigns in every state. it's past clients include bush cheney, dole kep, and over dozen members of the house of representatives. please join me in welcoming down. our next panelist is david wasserman from the cook

political report, a dream job for a lot of us in the room. he is responsible for handicapping and analyzing house races and also serves with the national journal. 2011, the cook political report pass comprehensive 2012 redistricting outlook. please join me in welcoming down. -- dan. [applause] our third panelist is jeff lis zt. he's a partner in a nationally recognized democratic polling firm and they do polling on political candidates on various officials including dozens of statewide officials. he is a veteran campaign operative who has experience in

working with did the triple c and the democratic governors association. in 2008, he was part of the campaign team to help elect president obama. join me in welcoming jeff. [applause] will turn it over to you, chris. >> thank you all for coming. i know in falls church, virginia, and was a little bit i see. i'm going to talk very briefly and let these guys do a bit of a spiel. i'm most interested if you guys have questions so we will do that. i was going through some numbers last night knowing i was going remarkableand it is the number of what we would identify as moderate either liberal to moderate republicans or moderate to conservative

democrats. those who have left congress willingly or unwillingly on the few years. winning bymcentire the closest margin of any democratic incumbent in the country in 2012 retiring. jim masterson in utah and a district representing that he absolutely should not. it's a remarkably republican district. suburbs ofn in the philadelphia also retiring. i don't think it's by accident. is a less thans pleasant place to be. at the moment, there are some members of congress who could dispute my theory, but i think it's not the most pleasant place to be right now. one number i was struck by, blue dog democrats and other members

in the 111th congress, there the blue dogrs of coalition. they are both members and retiring. this is one of my favorite fascinating information's, but the seven most conservative house democrats according to the voting ratings, all of them are no longer in the house. ,he seven most conservatives two lost primaries, from oklahoma, pennsylvania, joe donnelly redistricted out of his seat in indiana. think you, richard murdoch, elected to the u.s. senate. i don't think it takes a rocket scientist to conclude that less people who, whether through

their own band or the politics of their district are inclined to cooperate with the other side that if there are less of those of smallhe likelihood deals is less likely. we've seen that play out. , you may or may not be aware of this, but it's an election year surprisingly enough and that seems to make the deals that happen. typically it's not the way we everyonehis town as looks towards the reelection races as opposed to spending a lot of time on what would likely be a very controversial or a very difficult to reach across the aisle to get something done, you deal whether it is on fiscal, immigration, energy.

i think the safe bet typically boar orngton is small nothing. we all hold the possibility that we are surprised that we are often not surprised. the one other thing i will say as it relates to the senate, i think you have a combination of moderates heading for the exits but i think you also have massive turnover particularly in the senate, a place where there is not typically that much turnover. these numbers are amazing to me. 2008, 40 new senators, 20 democrats and 20 republicans. six years ago, 44 senators had served at least three terms. today that number is 32. the senators had served one full term or less. more than half served one full term or less. senatese-ization of the

-- i know that's not a word -- but it is in play. many senators are more loyal and more aware of some of these outside groups than they might be of john cornyn or mitch mcconnell. these people are just new. there's not an institutional wisdom that exists. you can argue if it's a good or bad thing but it's a saying. you take huge turn under -- turnover with the departure of the moderates and we are where we are today. i will stop there because i'm interested in what these guys have to say and i will just question them as i see fit. i will go from right to left. dave. of veryit on a lot important points. 2014 is going to be another polarizing election in this country. the cook political report, my

organization, rates them as competitive in a general election and that includes 24 democratic held seats and 21 republican held seats. seats to take control of the house but they really need to pick up 19 republican seats because there is no realistic chance they can hold the north carolina seventh or the utah four. if you look at the mass and added up, they would need to win 43 of those 45 races be currently see as competitive in order to take back the house. that is something we've never really seen before. the likelihood is republicans will make a small net gain in 2014 for three reasons. first of all, simply the history of the six year itch election, the pattern in a post-world war ii era where the party and the presidency loses an average of 29 house seats.

second of all, the terrain and just the fact that the house is very well sorted out right now. there are only 17 republicans left in districts that president obama carry it. only nine democrats remain in district that romney carried, two of whom are in this room .oday then you get to the third factor which is the midterm turnout dynamic and this is something that flies under the radar a lot in the media but will be destiny in the 2014 midterm elections. who votes in the midterm hence to be younger voters, wealthier voters. that never really used to matter because in terms of the generation gap, democrats and republicans were doing just about as well the voters 18-29 and 60 and older. what happens when you have president obama's approval

rating 15 points better among voters in the younger age group than the older react os and as you have a midterm election, you have -- younger age group than the older? you have a midterm election the presidential year without any opinions changing. we're looking at a republican gain in the house of the single were heldthe election today. democrats need to sustain momentum from the government shut down into 2014 in order to have a chance of picking up seats. we will see if they can move the needle back over the course of the next 10 months but i think we've gone from a place of talking about how moderates are a dying breed to moving on to the debate of if it turns around or if there are factors within the control of voices in the center. i think the first step for

voices in the center and congress to realize is that there are societal forces at work here that are much larger than simply one election. i would argue that there are three trends that have andsformed the landscape reforms that those in the middle can consider the kind of move away from this polarization that we've seen. i look forward to discussing those trends today whether it is self sorting in the electorate, a decline of straight ticket voting or split ticket voting across the country rather. or simply the prevalence of primaries and that force in the election moving members of congress to the polls. >> it's like a movie trailer. i have one very important thing to tail you but it will not be until the end. >> i would actually echo the

plight and i would caution when they say this is the most decisive election in the course of history -- of course it is. it's the one you are involved in. overu look at the trend our career in politics there is a clear trend in where we are and where we are going in terms of polarization and hitting a new level of quality in polling and respect on a national level. when i started it was inconceivable. i was a house republican guy back when we thought there would a republican majority in the house of representatives ever in my lifetime. it was inconceivable and we all wavered underneath that belief and thankfully that is far gone. this big trend where a lot is shifting. the number of the senate retirements and moderates, this just happens. we had to go through this process.

if you look at the seats and a large number of these members have, they will be senators and they will get to their third term in many places. they will be able to see the number of democrats this year because of the political environment and that's another cycle that we are in right now. this cycle back and forth of therization combined with mission of this organization, the center of the electorate. it is very fractured and not monolithic except for what? disconnectedlly and it feels like washington and the power everywhere whether it is business, big labor, politics , it does not give a rats you know what about that. they have been abandoned. that is the challenge going forward. it's one of the tremendous things obama brought in a candidate. suddenly there was going to be this different approach to things and named rahm emanuel

and nancy pelosi as the vice chancellors and we went back into a highly polar rise to world and we will continue and that's where we will go on till the get the next president. that is the fact of where we are and politically, unfortunately, obamacare is just a train wreck at the minimum from public opinion point of view edits created a great opinion. it will be a good year for all of the democratic reasons -- demographic reasons. we are looking at been gains -- we are looking at big games. we will talk about that. one thing i would caution both my party and the democrats is history is not the person trying to force you to do something different. it's going to be some outside factor that will pull people's attention away from obamacare. who knows what that will end up

being. the old phrase it's a lifetime in politics in the next 10 months and it certainly is but it will be a fascinating year. >> jeff. my beliefs about 2014 are a little bit different. i think of you look at some of the recent elections that we've , the concrete settled relatively early. that was definitely the case in the 2006 wave year and largely the case in 2010. but i don't really believe that the concrete has yet settled on 2014 elections. i think republican numbers have rebounded since the government shut down which led to a sizable democratic advantage on the generic ballot. there was a cnn poll that showed republicans retaking an advantage on the generic ballot. i think there is still a great chance not only for an event-

driven change in the generic like a problem stemming from another budget fight but also from the primaries and what did republican primaries deliver this year? if you look back at elections, the story is only in part republican gains in the house but i think in a larger sense it is the feeling for republicans to take back the senate. until i see an example of republican primaries delivering centrist candidates who can win general elections, it's going to be pretty optimistic about the 2014 elections. one thing that will come into play is how macroeconomics intersect with party messaging. one of the things happening in america right now is that while productivity for workers continues to rise and corporate

profits continue to rise, wages remain flat. if you are in a job and you are trying to support your family, your perception is that you are working hard and you are not being rewarded in particular for working hard. you are not necessarily making more money. it's harder to send your kids to college. you are struggling in spite of how hard you are working. think that's a feeling among the electorate that cuts across party lines. if you look at the anger that animated voters in 2010 and delivered a lot of republican gains, it's not all that different from the anger that 2006er democratic gains in and 2000 date. it's the feeling we're in a society where others are getting taken care of and others are doing well. democrats made the argument that it was the wealthy corporations and i think republicans pretty compellingly made the case that

obamacare is going to provide insurance to people who did not have it which is not the people who were showing up to vote. the vast majority already had insurance so their perception was the government was delivering for people who were not them. also, i think we should not neglect the ways in which 2010 republicans ran to the left of democrats. republicans ran left of democrats on medicare in 2010. a tendency tois think that the 2010 electorate was really animated by different way,es and it was, in some a real repudiation of what had happened in washington that i'm not all that convinced that the anger animating the writing on the left has been all that different. there is a center that is less polarized than what you see in

washington and the congress that represents it. to 2014, forwarded we're going to keep an i am for some of the dynamics that we saw in 2010. one of which is seniors and which way they break. right after the 2010 election, use of a special election in new york and it was a race that was decided on medicare but on a very different way down the races 2010 had been decided on medicare. are also going to look at the people who have not really done all that well in this economic recovery in the disproportionate number of people without college degrees. we will see women without theyge degrees, which way break because 2010 was an important way in which they broke against democrats. they lost the edge they had had in terms of who's on your side. i think we're also going to look

at a lot of suburban areas that i think after 2000 date, democrats felt they had locked 8 like outside of richmond. optimistic. not only optimistic for democratic politicians and democrats like kay hagan in north carolina who are centrist, one of the most moderate members of congress but also for members as a whole. i want to just go around one more time and then we can take questions. >> this is what i come back to. gallup had a poll this week, the party id poll. independent, 42%, highest it's ever been. find --the effort to

42% of the country thinks there are independent. i think we would all agree people don't like the two parties. if you say the late thing better at the moment than -- were standard democratic party is the republican party. people in congress, 33% of people -- everybody hates everybody. why when you have this large number of independent people do we have these efforts like in 2012, they tried to recruit an independent candidate, money behind it, and nominating convention and the person they picked was -- ron paul. he was not even actively trying to get the nomination. what is the disconnect between the number of people when we all the grease a two party system is people the number of identified as independent, unaffiliated going up everywhere and the fact that he attempts to

be in the center ideologically in a democratic or republican party or to actually form a center that is a part does not work. jeff, i will let you go first. the 42% independent number is inflated. and you ask people whether or not they lean towards democratic or republican, the independent number shrinks a lot. if you say you were independent but you lean towards one party, your behavior tends to be very similar to the people who flat out identify as being from that party. one of the other findings in that gallup poll was that republican identification is at an all-time low. that does mean -- does not mean that there are less but a lot of them are self identifying. a lot of them are tea party.

those with no party today tends to be more of a tea party universe and you had a third- party candidate on the ballot and how optimistic you were as a democrat depended on how much you expected a third-party most ofe -- once again, those voters went home to the republican party and they ended up doing well. looking at i'm people who self identify as a moderate and less that people who self identify as independent. >> i would say one of the critical things when you look at , people think that independent and moderate are synonymous and the data would not at that they are in all. one theinelli independence over terry mcauliffe.

he lost badly among moderates. won the so-called critical independent vote while losing the general election. we tend -- and i put myself in this category -- we say independent, moderate, they are not in fact the same thing. also add the label when someone calls them a swing .oter, these terms are fiction independents are more republican, moderates are more democrat, we differ on the degree. with the commonality of that 42% in this area of polarization, they are polarized against the beltway, polarized against everybody in this room because we live in the washington area, they are against us because they have been trained through repetitive, painful experience

that their interactions with government cause them pain and discomfort. i think jeff's earlier comments about the inequality issues, i think there's a lot to the idea that there's a group of people who are very distantly connected down the problem that the democrats have with that message into that audience is that those people no longer trust the democrats. a virus that been has convinced a large portion of that group of people that there is no solution that cares about them. they are trading one party and .he stigmas that people here there are massive differences between the parties. >> people don't feel that. >> daily criteria of the difference is someone looking out for me, there's 42% of americans who say parties are the same and they don't care about me which creates a big dynamic out there and it's what we will be fighting over the selection.

>> that brings me to the same question. environment, you would think would be ripe for candidates. i'm not saying why is there not a third-party right now? for a would be ripe candidate theoretically who said exactly what you just did. these people are not listening to you. i will. and yet, that kind of candidate that is a broad generalization, but that candidate does not seem to be emerging as often as you would think looking purely from a political darwinist expect -- perspective that it would be good to have. are independent more republican leaning? in large part is because the word republican has become similarly a dirty word like the word liberal decades ago.

there are many self identified conservatives in the electorate who have lost faith in the republican party establishment for spending too much over the last decade. they do not call themselves republicans when they are asked anymore. there is a slightly conservative tinge. this is why i expected 42% figure to only go up over the course of the next several years because younger voters have grown up in an era where they have lost the ability of them to come together and get things done. the majority or the plurality really wants to see this happen. the question that i really have is what is the overlap between that 42% of independents and those who are really deciding who comes here. how many of them participate in primaries? in the case of many elections, and congressional primaries, we

see participation rates of about 20% which means in many districts, 10% or fewer are actually selecting the member who comes to washington and votes on their behalf. how did those voices who were being underrepresented in washington, either enhance and expand participation in primary elections or open up the primary product altogether through the forms that the states like california have undertaken? >> it's all of the tall stories for a lot of primary voters, a lot of the most polarizing people to come out of primaries have been those who are angry at washington and talk about how washington is broken. >> i want to ask one more question and then open it up. political polarization may be bad for getting things done in washington but as several groups mostly on the ride at this point, having the white house

makes it harder, but they have proven that it may be bad for governance but it's good for business in that many groups have made their living and have the tedup by endorsing cruz is of the world, chris mcdaniel running against mississippi. is the rise of ted cruz, mike lee, rand paul -- i put them in a group even though i know there ,re quite clear the differences your point is that we are not really in and anomalous time. we just think we are. conservative republican and i looked at the federalist tapers and i think our government is not the sign to move fast. they fear a government of

passions of the moment making big radical decisions like changing 1/6 of our economy on partyline votes. >> i don't know what you are referring to. >> that's not what the founders wanted. i like the idea that it has complications, problems, slows things down. -- madison said the factions come by. you have tea party movements which are far more fractured which i'm sure moveon.org is more fractured than i realized. is good.any when you add what i think is a really smart system that forces all of these groups to fight, i think it's healthy that all of these are coming in. i oppose labour in a lot of situations. it's great that they are in the mix and trying to fight. the problem we have now and our

large country of 300 million plus people is they have a political structure where it takes a massive amount of name identification and resources to run a campaign for a congressional seat. you want reform, you want to change, all this talk about money and all of this stuff is irrelevant and my opinion generally bad. you want to unhinge the system in a healthy way, take the house up to like 1000 people over 1200 people and who knows what that cause for the seats but grassroots movements will be able to compete in their local elections. the math that you talk about is you will be able to have local candidates. you might see an emergence. a greens a time when party actually won an assembly seat and a few other isolated places. entity, you cannot hold them against the forces in our society. there are all of these other factors out there that are

communications structures and others. make the seats smaller and the grassroots will matter more. isolated causes will matter more. you will still have your large variety of colorful individuals in the house of representatives but you will have lots of opportunities. if somebody is wrong in the andunity and the relief -- it will be defined smaller whether this is a moderate, dynamic independent, whatever that will be able to seriously threaten that person which will then have a different effect on how legislation is in the house. >> did we have a poll on adding more politicians to washington? very much in are favor of expanding the house of representatives in 2012. in newmember when i was hampshire to cover the presidential and like every third person you ran into was in the state legislature because it is 400 plus people.

it was massive. , is there ant changereform that could who we send here? the problem is everyone gets here. why are they voting like this? that is what the people who elected them to do one. dave, i'm sure, has the number. the number of those who get elected with 55% or under is a pittance. that is including a lot of people who may not be in the party but it seems to me we are on the wrong end of the problem. they are doing what they are sent here to do. is there reform to change it in your mind? >> let me start by responding to the attacks on obama care which i promise is not off-topic.

[laughter] >> i'm skeptical, but go ahead. not onlycare part d, in terms of policy over passage but also in terms of the trajectory of the polling it was first introduced, there was a lot of confusion. they could not figure out how to sign up because a lot of the mechanisms were similar to the mechanisms of obama care the government created program where you sign up through a private provider. the toll numbers were exasperated. democrats shared the goal of providing prescription drug coverage to people. when you're out from the election, the assumption was medicare part he would be disastrous. one year later, it was working very differently and it ended up being a boon. you have 10 million people with insurance right now who did not have insurance before obamacare. kids onludes 5 million

their parents insurances. people are going to have benefits that have accrued by obamacare by the time you get to the next election and i think it's wrong to judge a program that has covered 10 million people after a few months and guaranteed coverage for those facing pre-existing conditions due to the failure of a website. there's a big difference between the perceptions of obamacare and whether or not they favor or oppose the individual elements of that. when you test whether or not they want a, b, c, d, contained within obamacare and part of that is now it's a couple of years old, but you had over 5 million sent through the elections not just on lobbying for obamacare but running ads attacking it. we live in the citizens united era of unfettered contributions from dark money. you saw the recent article that $400 million coming from the koch brothers --

crexendo to look out for my own. like strong journalism. >> kay hagan has been the number one recipient of those dollars and the attacks coming out of those dollars. i remember asking myself at the end of the year whether we just live in a new era. people assume they understand the impact of citizens united because we saw it in 2012. that was a dry run. i started asking myself at the end of last year when we were seeing the million dollar ad eyes against hagan whether we live in a new regime where the ads are just starting the year before and they never go dark. they never calmed down. theink if you look at branding of obamacare, very different from how people feel about the individual component because of the money spent the fighting it negatively. if you look at the senate races and how much money has been spent thus far out, if you want to avoid that kind of polarization that we have right now, part of the solution and

one of the reforms is .verturning citizens united clicked the hugo chavez eliminating free speech in the country is the solution. that's a nice history, but for those of us who are maybe a little older, grayer -- >> you pulled that same line at my party. clicked he said it to my grandfather. >> 1995-1996 after we took the majority in the house for the first time, labor unleashed $35 million campaign in an off year of robo calls and tv ads blitzing all of the republican incumbents and this is not soft dark money because it comes from confiscated money held by labor unions. point where i go factionsetting the

fight it out. get everybody into the arena. politics is not pretty. argue over the issues. we can certainly argue over obamacare. pre-existing conditions, children under 26, they are powerful arguments for the democratic side and they been using it recently and in the past. the tab that fight. let's have everyone out there arguing as loud as they can. it's not pretty. it's unsettling to watch a family argument. how many of us have been at thanksgiving when a family arrived in a fight? it's good for the republican that is when we need. if you want to weaken that money, give the grassroots more power. clicked can i take this in a different direction you? began before citizens united. there are three causes icy out there that are worth addressing to chris's question. the first is really the notion

of right marries. i think there ought to be more discussion of what can be done to open a primary is whether it is a california-style to reduce the extent to which members of congress are simply playing to the primary base. that has become very prevalent as a result of the fact that we have such polarized district. what is polarizing the district cap go first of all, this is something that is beyond the control. you cannot tell people where to move. 30 8.6% of the american electorate lived in counties that were landslide counties them at least 60% of the two party vote. in 2012, the number was a majority for the first time. independent every district in in the last election, 76% of democratic leaning congressional