now, live to thousand floor on c-span. let us play -- pray. dear god, we give you thanks for giving us another day. we ask your special blessing upon the members of this people's house. they face difficult decisions in difficult times with many forces and interests demanding their attention. in these days, give wisdom to all the members that they might execute their responsibilities to the benefit of all americans, especially those who work for less than a living wage and struggle to make ends meet and those who would work but are unable to find sustainable employment. bless them, o god, and be with them and with us all this day and every day to come. may all that is done be for your

greater honor and glory, amen. the speaker pro tempore: the chair has examined the journal of the last day's proceedings and announces to the house his approval thereof. pursuant to clause 1 of rule 1, the journal stands approve the pledge of allegiance will be offered by the gentleman from south carolina, mr. wilson. mr. wilson: everyone, including our guests in the gallery, please join in. i pledge allegiance to the flag of the united states of america and to the republic for which it stands, one nation, under god, indivisible, with liberty and justice for all. the speaker pro tempore: the chair will entertain requests for one-minute speeches. for what purpose does the gentleman from south carolina seek recognition? mr. wilson: i ask unanimous consent to address the house for one minute and revise and extend my remarks. the speaker pro tempore: without objection, the gentleman is recognized for one minute. mr. wilson: on friday, the

bureau of labor statistics released the weakest jobs report in three years. in december, we added only 74,000 job, less than half those expected to be created. sadly more people lost hope and gave up the search for the job -- for a job, causing the work force participation rate to tumble to the low etc. point in other three decades. the president's policies are not working. for five years, while the president focused on expanding the size of goth, house republicans have focused on job creation of the private sector. we have passed dozens of bills to create immediate jobs, reduce regulations to allow small businesses to begin hiring again, and reform our tax code so families will be able to keep more of their hard-earned paychecks. but big government destroys jobs and causes more economic uncertainty for families. i hope the president will change course and begin working with us to help put the american people back to work. in conclusion, god bless our troops and we will never forget september 11 and the global war on terrorism.

the speaker pro tempore: for what purpose does the gentleman from texas seek recognition? >> i ask unanimous consent to address the house for one minute and revise and extend my remarks. the speaker pro tempore: without objection, the gentleman is recognized for one minute. >> since 2002, other $33 million in grants have gone to fund a liberal news organization called internews. it's described as a liberal nonprofit, stating it not only pushes a liberal agenda but has helped create other liberal organizations. mr. smith: this is a misuse of the public's money. people need unbiased information so they can form their own opinions and make educated decisions. one of the greatest challenges a democratic america faces today is a biased media. it is inexcusable and irresponsible for the federal government to give any of the american taxpayers' dollars to a

liberal media organization. the speaker pro tempore: for what purpose does the gentlelady from north carolina seek recognition? ms. foxx: i ask unanimous consent to address the house for one minute, mr. speaker. the speaker pro tempore: without objection, the gentlelady is recognized. ms. foxx: last week we marked the 50th anniversary of the war on poverty. twhile the standard of living of americans has risen in the last 50 years the number of those under the poverty line has remained largely constant. in war, good generals adjust when current tactics aren't producing results. yet we continue to raise -- wage ar on poverty in the same way. is situation was outdated in 1964, it's archaic now. president johnson said he wanted to give our fellow citizens a fair chance to develop their own capacities. my bill, the skills act, would

streamline the federal government's overlapping and outdated work force development programs and help put americans back to work. the skills act passed the house with bipartisan support. it's time for the senate to take action on this vital legislation. i yield back. the speaker pro tempore: for what purpose does the gentleman from minnesota seek recognition? >> i ask unanimous consent to address the house for one minute and revise and extend my remarks. the speaker pro tempore: without objection, the gentleman is recognized. >> it was over 150 years ago on a battlefield near a small town in pennsylvania that president abraham lincoln gave what many would argue is one of the most prolific and inspiring speeches in history. his gettysburg address may not have been long but his words fted a nation and showed the sacrifice displayed on the battlefield months earlier. mr. paulsen: today the house will pass legislation to give the national park service the authority to incorporate the

gettysburg train station into the gettysburg national military park. mr. speaker, our nation's national parks, including gettysburg, are some of the our greatest treasures. it's imperative we continue working to ensure that future generations of americans can visit the history, the scenery, the vistas and the landmarks of our nation's national parks and i yield back. the speaker pro tempore: for what purpose does the gentleman from nevada seek recognition? >> i ask unanimous consent to address the house for one minute and revise and extend my remarks. the speaker pro tempore: without objection the gentleman from nevada is recognized for one minute. >> thank you, mr. speaker. i rise today in remembrance of retired nevada assemblyman bernie anderson who passed away friday. a graduate of the university of nevada in reno, bernie was a high school government teacher in the washoe county school district. he was a colleague of mine for 14 years in the nevada assembly. ruling the assembly judiciary

committee with an iron hand for many of those sessions. behind that iron hand and gruff service -- surface was the -- was a gentleman who had a heart of gold and was basically a lovable teddy bear. when you talk about a life well lived, bernie checked all the becomeses. his family, community, students, constituents, colleagues and the state of nevada can all attest to the fact that he was a good man. i'm privileged to call chairman anderson my friend. nevada is better off because of his services. i offer my sincere condolences to his family and friends. rest in peace, my friend. mr. speaker, i yield back. the speaker pro tempore: pursuant to clause 12a of rule 1, the chair declares the house in recess until

the wisconsin republican will talk about social mobility of the brookings institution. you can watch that live right here on c-span. case is one of the bigger court cases that could potentially transform the communications sector. michael powell will am a former chairman of the sec several years ago said the biggest thing that is going to change our stay is this case. will see potentially the supreme court take this up and find out one way or another whether the service is legal under copyright law. what the sec does will be

determined by a brand-new very dynamic chairman in tom wheeler who used to head the ctia and is not afraid to come out swinging. >> i would say one of the biggest issues will be surveillance reform. 2013 was a big year for surveillance. the leaks will keep coming we have been told. by the end of january president obama will address the review group recommendation. ise of which the white house likely to accept right off the bat. some will be more contentious. >> the technology and telecommunications issues facing lawmakers this year. tonight at 8:00 eastern. nancy reagan was the first sitting first lady to keep the united nations and the first to address the united nations.

of my young friends out there, life can be great. to see it in the vivid colors that life gave us as of gift to the children and to enjoy life and make it count. say yes to your life, and when it comes to drugs and alcohol, just say no. hasirst lady nancy reagan the original series influence and image returns tonight at 9:00 eastern on c-span and three at these -- c-span radio. >> earlier today the new america foundation hosted a panel looking at the impact of public or government funding on political campaigns. this icused on the recent book university of illinois science professor michael miller. his study looked at public financing in arizona, along with

other jurisdictions and outline the advantages and disadvantages of the publicly-and did elections. other speakers included matt hines who talks about his experiencing -- experiences. they spoke for just under an hour and a half. >> good morning. welcome to the new america foundation. welcome to the first event of the political reform program. i recently returned to new america to get the program launched. havehe first discussion we had about political reform issues but the first in this

series and there will be many more, which i hope it -- you will come to. today we're bringing people together to discuss a fabulous new book called subsidizing democracy by michael g miller. the value of the book is that it is the first book to look at what is really happening in the states, particularly arizona that have had robust public financing systems for some years now. at the financial level the conversation has mostly been of the numbers are huge. outside money overwhelms the candidates and parties, nothing seems to be happening in congress even on things like disclosure. in fact, over the past 15 years or so, we have had a significant

amount of experimentation, mostly in the states with systems of public dynamic thing that very insignificant ways. given the experimentation, we are able to look at what works and what does not. systems, new york system the tax credit that was turned off for a while. most of the systems have been generally upheld by the courts and one significant exception in arizona. they have been generally politically resilient. they have been generally popular with candidates. got involved in some of these issues around the time the arizona law was bubbling up, i was working on the hill. we tended to look at public financing like a black and white thing. haveould automatically

less corruption, fairer elections and things like that. over time we realized a lot of things will happen in a system like that. a lot of things will happen between the financing and legislation in things like that and michael's book looks at what goes on in the middle? those boater purchase a patient increase or change in any significant way? is the ideology of people participating or not participating any difference? an interesting question is have we created opportunities for people to gain the system or manipulated in any way to gain advantage? after he presents important findings from the book, which really involve an in-depth study of candidates in arizona, as well as all the other systems, we will have comments from three surprisinglyve different perspectives, although

they share a basic sympathy to the idea. a professor of law at george washington university school of law hear from 2008-2010. 2009-2000 11 he was principal deputy attorney general working on voting rights and legal policy. the author of an article called participation interest, the article that has really influenced my view of money in politics. the director of the campaign finance institute and professor at suny albany and a longtime the reformed traditions. he is the co-author of a wonderful paper for called network campaigns. about helped us think some of these ideas in a new way. i know lee, matt hines is a medical doctor.

he is more importantly for our purposes, he a two-term arizona minorityresentative, whip in the arizona legislature. we will talk about the experience of being a participant in the system and running an election where they did not have the public in 2012. currently director in provider -- of provider outreach. he is not speaking on behalf of the administration, but really from his own personal experiences. with that, i will turn it over to michael miller. you.ank i just want to say thank you to the new america foundation and other panelists were joining us today. introduction was so good, it cut my presentation in

half. to beason why i came interested in this as policy and one to write the book from the perspective that i did is in a former life i was a consultant- strategistst -- working on a congressional campaign. we did not always win. when we would lose, they would say the same thing, imagine what we could have done if only we had the money. that stayed with me. when i went to graduate school and progressed through that part of my life, it you come to the need to take on pretty big questions, and that is a pretty big question, what would candidates do if they had more money cap go the jumping off point is the understanding that these programs, more from just the big questions that we tend to think of, the winning and the there is a real capacity

here to change candidate behavior in the way that they in a rack with voters and change the way -- interact with voters, and change the way the orientation of artistic mission of voters, i think there is great potential for it to be affected by public funding. so the goal of the book really is to expand the analysis. the political scientists looked at the easy to measure questions, our elections closer? are incumbents winning? two challengers have more money when they run out so i wanted to get more in-depth in the analysis and to focus on the candidates. the book looks at public funding through their eyes. the way i did that was i went to arizona shortly following 2006

legislative elections and went with primary losers across this date. i fielded a survey during the 2008 legislative election to candidates in 18 states. not just arizona. there are public funding systems of some strife in place in almost half the states today if you take a very broad definition of public funding. importantly, i will focus not on the matching fund rogue rims that have done a lot of work there. i will not talk about those, but i hope they will. i will speak only about the subsidy programs that take one dollar from the accounts of the direct -- from the government accounts and move it directly to the candidate. there are two types to the program, partial and full them and they are pretty self- explanatory. in the fully funded system,

those were in place in arizona, connecticut and maine. they effectively gave the theydates all they money needed to run the race. in arizona, i believe the subsidy was just over 30 thousand dollars for primary and general election. when a candidate runs in that circumstance, you agree you will money, youdditional will not put any of your own money and additionally in. threshold, 210 five dollar donations, that is when they qualify for the subsidy. 2008 werel program in in play in minnesota, wisconsin, hawaii. they have since suspended the program in hawaii. those programs only give you a percentage of the money you need

to run the race. there may be at $30,000 spending limit, but we will give you 10,000 to get you started and you have to raise the rest. candidate behavior is important to me. this effectively eliminates the necessity of raising money. having worked in campaign offices and the efforts seen to raise the amount of money they needed, i think the real element is not money but time. the question is, if you removed the fundraising item from the menu of activities that candidates have to do on a week to week basis, what will they do with that gain? that is a really important question for understanding the way that politics will be waged. survey where i ask candidates what they did and went and talked to them. i will go through the findings of how accepting full personal funding affected their time.

on a week to week basis, when we control for all of the other things that could also affect the relationship, candidates from fully funded states but not partially funded states demonstrated significantly less time spent fundraising, about five hours per week. effectively goes from five hours to zero hours. the partially funded candidates, because they only got part of the money they needed, they still behave exactly like traditionally-funded candidates. from that, if you have one group of candidates, the fully funded candidates not raising money, what do they do with the time? stay invested 100% and then some with what i call public interaction. we have conceived of politics as existing into spheres. the campaign for money and

campaign for vote. i look at public interaction. anything a candidate does to get electric campaigning, doing press interviews, etc.. if you take various definitions of public interactions, i get the same result, 12 percentage points weekly time is spent back on a personal level. when you translate that to weekly hours, 5-6 hours per week, spending time with voters and candidates they would not have otherwise. over the course that sounds like a small number, but when you think about the typical legislative campaign existing for march to november and five hours per week over that time, what we are talking about here is hundreds, and probably thousands of interactions between candidates and voters that would not have occurred otherwise.

the second question, if candidates are talking to voters, you think a couple of things might happen. if i have a candidate on my doorstep and am receiving ,nformation about the race maybe i did not know what the county auditor or the state legislative candidate does. there is learning happening. while i cannot sort out the mechanism there, you would think theoretically if there is more interaction between the candidates and voter, there will probably be changes in voting behavior. ,o when we look at the voting we find interesting effects as well. what i think you have to do is throw out the tendency to look at turnout. i do not think theoretically the state races are powerful enough

to compel someone to get off to their couch and drive to the polling place. if you think about all of you as voters, when was the last time forwent, charged up to vote the state legislative candidate? we do not see that. i think the correct dependent variable is rolloff. the question is, what is the percentage of people that show up, boat for the president and stop voting? they cast their ballot but then do not cast the ballot for the races down below. we see that in high presidential years. people are knowledgeable about the presidential race, but not those down below. when they have a candidate on their doorstep, i find in connecticut and in maine, when there is a publicly funded candidates running in their district, rolloff goes down by

20-30%. interpret that is of the people that went to vote in the presidential election year, 30% more are voting. summing up, fully funded candidates are spending much more time directly interacting with the voting public, and in districts where at least one of the candidate is running, more old registering a preference in voting. more people are going to the ballot. we are losing fewer of them. there is more of this kind of interaction happening then many americans see as a cornerstone of representative democracy, and more people are voting. those are fairly the things for most people. i also looked at what we call candidate quality, which is exactly what it sounds like.

for most of america when you have high that we funded races, raising money is a really hard and awful thing to do. if you are not a good candidate, you do not have those attributes, maybe you have never served in an office, do not have the connection, what we see is a similar story. candidates become challenged by those that have the resources. what i find in public funding is programs are effectively a factory for quality candidates. if you think about the social studies teacher who always wanted to run for the state house but had never want to party meetings, the marketplace in most of america might judge her as not a great candidate. vote for someone who does not have campaign experience? what we find with the full

funding is we diminish anxiety among candidates. we increase the feeling that they are feeling in control. they are surprised from the rigors of raising money and emerge to take on incumbent. you are seeing challengers coming out of the word to say things like i knew i was going to lose this race, but the program is me all the resources i need to run a strong campaign and i wanted to give my a goodrs as -- conversation. strategically altered framework. that is interesting to me. the quality factory really changes the capacity for citizens to transition to candidates. so i am happy to talk about that. those are all i think fairly normative good things. thes not all good news from

state. i have a chapter in the book and which i talk about the cost of participating. the republican candidates or conservative candidates, i will use the term interchangeably even if they are not always the same thing, they have more participation.of higher anxiety, more strategic concerns. sometimes if you want -- run as candidates inded a primary, they will use that against you. the costsee because of dynamic is a much higher participation rate among democrats. if you look at how that plays out for incumbents of the legislature, democrats are less likely to be met with publicly- funded challenge, and therefore you have resources to make a good challenge. there is some concern in my mind that one of the practical republican to a

be a little more threatened. finding that-- would not be as positive on public finding is gaming of the matching funds system as originally constructed. those have since been struck down by the supreme court, but if i ran as a publicly funded candidate against a traditionally funded one, every dollar my opponent spent above thresshold i would get a check. the traditionally funded candidates would not spend the money above the threshold. they would wait until the friday before the election and then they would go on the tv with ads and mailers and walkers. a pop-up campaign.

the publicly funded candidate in that situation would get the check on tuesday or wednesday after the election. so we found there was really delayed spending and pushing that political activity as well. that was a quick tour of the book. i will be happy to take questions and make any -- and taken the comments. the lessons from a policy perspective -- and we approach these things with these conclusions or assumptions about american policy -- politics and democracy, and i really think as we move forward and consider the public funded bills for congress, we ought to think about how the incentives are going to change and how the activities and behavior and strategy and the motion of congressional or any candidates would change and in turn how that altered behavior would affect voters as well. i would turn it back over.

>> thank you very much. >> to add my thanks to mark and the new america foundation for putting on this event. i want to begin with my most important comment. it is this -- this is a good book. it is a very good book. anyone who is here who bothered to come out this morning to hear it. event, you should buy it is available outside and he will sign it. that is my big point. i wanted to say this upfront. because most of my comments today are going to sound critical. and that is because i am going to take what is learned from the

book and try to apply it to different situations. cause i thinks to the financing is important as an noue and also because jurisdiction in the future is likely to pass a program that is exactly like the ones in arizona and connecticut. it is important to remember, yes, the supreme court would overturn arizona's trigger funds and by implication also maine's and connecticut's. that is giving extra money to candidates facing independent expenditures. at the same time the supreme court firmly and clearly upheld the constitutionality of voluntary public financing. the keyword there is "voluntary." who has signed up

for public funding has to do it voluntarily, and no legislature in the future is likely to adopt a row graham with rigid spending limits that leaves a candidate helpless against millionaire opponents and independent spending. as a result, advocates are typically recommending different policy. in new york, and in all of the federal bills under serious consideration, the sponsors have moved away from the spending limits and its dead they use outlook financing as a slur and then the use matching funds to to people who raise money from small donors. i am not looking for analysis of one system. i am looking at the reasoning underneath, the lessons for the future. for example, for the reasoning underneath, i was impressed by the way michael decided to work way law isough the

structured for incentives and candidates. that is not how political scientists have written about it in the past. that is the right way to go about it. to explain what i have learned, i am going to spend most of my time -- i will be happy to talk the excellent chapter on engagement and participation. thisow i want to focus on issue of how candidates spend their time as a way to get at the question that concerns me. begins by saying that most candidates have too much to do and they do not have enough time to do it, and that is clearly correct. the question of the week is, what happens if you can free them up from fundraising? which is an activity most candidates do not enjoy. michael said, he asked candidates in a number of state to fill out a time log in

early october, and from those logs, he found that candidates who accept full public funding spend no time raising money and therefore spend a greater percentage of their time making direct contact with voters than did the traditionally funded candidates in the same states. that is not a surprise. but it is important because most of us would prefer that ended its spend time to community -- that candidates spend time with constituents. publicly funded states spend a higher percentage of their time in direct voter contact and candidates in states with no public funding war in partial public funding. importantly for future policy, he found almost no difference between states with partial public funding and no public funding. that is where i want to focus my attention. i have serious reservations

about the conclusion that about the method. to explain the reservation, i am afraid i have to get into some leads. to make sure we had enough cases ,o test the fiscal significance what michael did, what he decided to do, and i understand why, is he lumped together all of the public funding states and the partial states and the traditional funded states, and he analyzed them as groups. he pulled the data, he joined them up, that was the basis for versusdings about full partial versus not. again a little more deeply into the weeds. if you look at the data before they were pulled, and if you have the book it is on page 155, michael gives us a broad chart which is the result of each state individually.

when you look at the bars carefully, you see the results are not quite so neat as the conclusion just presented. for example, a publicly funded candidates in arizona spend less time in field activities than the ones in maine and connecticut. that is not a problem by itself. but it becomes a problem when you compare arizona to states that do not have clean elections. let's compare arizona to the street state's with -- to the three states with partial funding. all those two states with partial funding, wisconsin, minnesota, hawaii, candidates spent a higher time on direct voter contact and the fully funded candidates in arizona. count everything as campaign activity, if you do not do fundraising, then you spend 100% of your time on the other stuff, but michael did emphasized direct voter contact. is more surprising, that

fact was also true in six of the nine states with no public money . six of the nine candidates spent more time on direct voter contact and voter in arizona. only two states out of a dozen came in lower than arizona. my conclusion from all of this dothat something more -- i not dispute what happens when you group three together, the three average publicly funded states, that is what they did. my conclusion is something more is going on than the difference between full public funding, partial, and traditional. publicly funded candidates in maine have the highest percentage of voter contact time, but traditionally funded candidates in maine were second. the variation among states is far too wide for the best explanation to be enough. the use of multiple regression

analysis will not help us solve the problem because the data was pulled before the regression. i took the time to go through these weeds because it is not just a technical issue. it has important policy implications. we have to figure out exactly what is driving the differences if you want to know the real impact of the public financing or contribution limit or any other kind of campaign finance regulation. this is going to be especially important for the future goes future public funding will be partial. it turns out the differences among the states' programs are far more new ones and the big label suggests. for example, if we look at the states with partial public funding, minnesota is quite different from hawaii or wisconsin. in both hawaii and wisconsin, very little public money goes to candidates, spending limits are unrealistically low, and few candidates choose to participate. in minnesota from a much higher

percentage of the money is public. small contributions are supported by tax credits, and these in turn can be seen as publicly supported money and a majority of republican and the credit candidates to participate. partly as a result of these policies, minnesota's candidates receive a higher percentage of their money from small donors than any other state in the country. 57% in 2010, the most recent year for which we have data. you also see striking results 1-6- new york city's six matching system. participating candidates got 61% of their money from small donors or the from the matching funds that small donors generate. in contrast, the medium state in 2010 received over 14% of their money from small donors. no others date was close to minnesota or new york.

-- new york city. so why did this happen? maybe it is because the rules in in newnnesota and york driver candidates to steer fundraising toward low-dollar donors within the candidates' districts. as a result, campaigning an fundraising in those places, not most places, but in those places, they are a piece. they are interwoven than being sacrosanct of these. when a candidate can make a pitch to potential donors about a rebate or matching funds, those pictures are taking place in a local living room or in a meeting call, not in corporate boardrooms and not in downtown law firms. in this respect, small donor matching fund programs are different from others. in traditional fundraising, it is separate from campaigning, and in election states, there is no fundraising.

in minnesota and new york city, the two become intertwined. this is not like other public funding, whether partial or full, a different dynamic, it has to be understood as such. my take from these comments is this -- we have to understand the impact of programs vary a bit with the details. the details are not only about public funding, but also about contribution limits and disclosure. book has-- michael's added we know, it is a definite contribution. it has shown that public the funded candidates in arizona, connecticut, and main centaur time under voter contact and traditionally funded candidates in the same states. but it does not tell us as much as we need to know to differentiate among others states. with district of public funds, minnesota's and new york's models have been successful and re being looked at as other models. we need to look at this

carefully. in the spirit of a researcher from my bottom line is i like book, but there is much more to do, and comparative state research is what is deeply needed because it is only by comparing states that you can get at what makes for effective and ineffective programs. >> thank you very much. quick,, what you said reminds me of something that janet napolitano said when she governor.'s i remember her saying this great thing for me is i used to go to a law firm boardroom to raise money, and then i would go out to the reservations and other places to look for votes. now i can go to the state, the people i am looking for for money. that is a good standard to look at. spencer? >> thanks.

thank marklike to smith. professor miller has written an important book. i agree with michael about that. i'm a law professor, not a and u.s. scientists, supreme court justice, we often make unfounded assumptions about how politics works, right? important, andre that is something that is important about this book. publicd assume that financing requires that candidates spend less time fundraising. we might assume that republican candidates might be more adverse to accepting public money. but this book shows that is there. many of us have faced the

question of whether or not public financing increases turnout. professor miller makes the more penetrating observation that with outlook financing voters -- with public financing voters are more likely to vote. i would like to note that professor miller focuses on state reform. those of us who are in the washington, d.c., area, focused too much on federal reform, and there are cutting edge organizations like public campaign, like common cause that inus on state reforms addition to federal reforms, and that state action is quite important. so now, as a good objective political scientists, for faster miller focuses on data. he acknowledges the goals of different financing programs

vary. because i am a lawyer, i cannot effects.ut data or i want to talk about my opinions. i will dress them up and call them values, right? but i am going to focus on these values here. should noancing money aim to purge all from politics. my valueind of proposition statement. instead, it should encourage as many private citizens from varied economic backgrounds to participate in the financing of politics. conventional reformers suggest that there is too much money in wrong.s, but they are the real problem is that money comes from too few people. while 64% of eligible americans 2008 in the november

election, only 10% to they give to political campaigns, and less is responsible for the bulk of money received in campaigns. just like we encourage all citizens to vote, the goal of should beancing to encourage all citizens to participate, to make a financial under vision to a political candidate of his or her chores. unfortunately, conventional campaign reform, public financing, sometimes suppresses political participation. as barack obama participated in general outlook financing? his campaign would not have been able to collect for the general $5 fromn even if single

a contributor. he would not he able to attract an unprecedented number, millions of small donors, and perhaps more important, president obama would have likely sacrificed houses of volunteer organizers who engaged in voter registration, door to door canvassing, and phone banking. that is because, as m michael has shown us his work, donating even small amounts creates a on and to a movement, and leads to public forms of grassroots engagements in terms of volunteering, voting, etc. one of the most promising tools for expanding participation is using public funds to match lyrical contributions. that was mentioned a little before, but the idea in a publicl is that financing programs should no longer attempt to equalize money between candidates by giving

each candidate the same amount for a flat grant. instead, public financing should facilitate participation by 6-1 matchy giving a6- on the first $200 contribution. that makes a $200 contribution by an individual equal $1400 to a candidate. matching funds or fax a fisher -- matching funds reflects a shift. reformers need to spend less energy on getting big money out of campaigns and more on getting the people back into those very same campaigns. a multiple matching funds is that core challenge to the lack of income. any time is a barrier to participation. individuals with family

incomes over $100,000 represented only 11% of the population, they made up a slightly higher percentage, 15%, of those who voted, right? and in terms of the amount of gave that they gave, they well over 70% of the money that was used for campaigns. folks are not participating, and we want average folks to participate in campaigns. multiple matching funds make candidates more willing to americans. i'm a law professor. i am not a political scientist like michael, so i have to use

his numbers, right? in new york state, candidates collect only 7% of their money give $250 orho less. that is for state candidates. new york state. there is no match in new york state, but on the city level, new york city, where there is a match from these candidates, as michael talked about, but over 60% of their money from people who give $250 or less. candidates because target these higher-income americans because it is just easier to raise money. candidate say, why should i call 10 people and ask for $100 for each of them when i can make one call and get a thousand dollars? are -- show people who

are more likely to get. we should not these surprise that more higher-income people are more likely to be asked, they're more likely to give. let me turn away from the differences in terms of the financing here to critics of public financing, right? argue private markets alone should finance politics. i disagree with that. i disagree because providing the basic framework for citizen participation, that is a proper function of government. for example, the state provides a platform for people to the president eight -- for people to participate in voter registration services, through ballots, through other tools. local matching funds are no different. multiple matching funds, they are not welfare for politicians, as some have labeled

conventional public financing. instead, multiple matching funds allow more people to use money publicol to hold officials accountable. those who insist that we have to rely on-money alone to finance theircs, they elevate mechanical aversion to commitment tor a legitimately expand liberty to more people. funds,ultiple matching they make candidates less dependent on a small group of large donors, and by doing so, they prevent corruption and the appearance of corruption. they can also avoid significant problems with traditional public financing, including wasting large subsidies on candidates with little public support. so summing it up --

reformers and they are already starting to do this, stop trying to purge money from politics, and that should use money as a tool to facilitate widespread participation in politics. thank you. >> is a law professor or political scientist? ofi am here on behalf myself. thank you to the new america foundation for the invitation. and aformer candidate former legislator from arizona, and so i represent a single data point. and i will disclose that i have not yet read the book, although i plan to, so i am just giving you an example of what it is like to live through this type

of system, and my experiences with that, and i will compare it a little bit to running for congress, which was in terms of fundraising just awful. every candidate will tell you this. out of residency, i moved to tucson, arizona, to attend my internal medicine residency mygram there, and throughout medical career became somewhat frustrated with in general how we have dealt with patients, the inefficiencies in medicine, and the various other things that prompted me as i was exiting my residency to try to make a change and not knowing much of all about politics. representative jim colby, who is inyour district two southeastern arizona, retired, and that caused gabrielle

giffords who stepped down from , which caused commotion. i walked into the democratic party headquarters not knowing a thing and announced, hello, i am heinz, and i'm here to run for congress. they looked at me, and said, who are you, and why are you here? i was in scrubs. i had not shaved, more so than now. that was my first real interaction with this whole system that i did not understand in any way. etentually i was able to g guidance from a state senator who discussed how this works, and we suggested -- he suggested, if you want to do this -- and being a democrat in the state legislature in arizona is not a rewarding experience, only because of the fact that i do not think it is 2-1, but at least two of the years i was there, it was more than 2-1

majority republicans. easy to explain, you tend to lose every vote, and we do work real hard. thatou need to make sure you need to work with your career, family, and you need money to do this. i recommend you look at the clean elections system. i had no idea what that was. as you have heard described by michael, it works really well. you get five bucks from -- you want to get about two and 50 of the contributions to make sure you have enough out once, and you go door-to-door to door, and that was something that was for me a personally rewarding, and that is basically all that i did was voter contact. , and as ar to door newly minted dr. going door-to- door, asking five dollars, a little odd, but i got to teach people about what this program was, what it did, how it

empowered them, and how it got some of the excess money out of 250system, and i got contributions door-to-door and continued that. my volunteers, myself, i think i went to about over 5000 homes personally. it is hard to do, and i did that in seven months, and i literally spoke to over 2000 people on their doorsteps. that is the kind of -- and that is the most boring thing that i think i was able to do during the campaign. that is how i actually did this come of the way the house legend works. getters in thee primary are the ones i go to the general, and my district, which minority, democrats typically win, but an incumbent that had been in for three terms who was very comfortable and did not choose to do much in the way of fieldwork and much in the way of going door-to-door, who also

did not qualify for his clean elections contributions either, i was defeated by -- defeated candidates, myself included. it would help a candidate like me with absolutely no connection whatsoever to a network, to as a resident, you are an indentured servant. you are in a hospital. the vi -- the v.a. and a couple hospitals in arizona there, and you do not come out to see the light very often. -- thatomething i would was able to help me get into the system. i did not win in 2006, actually. i skipped over that. i tried. i did well. 2008 and iagain in did win. that was the election i was talking about where i exceeded -- defeated an incumbent. i have to say my experience has been a positive one with the system.

2010 usingrun in traditional funding for a righty of reasons. it still is not a huge focus for me. i was an unchallenged incumbent. 2012, where a briefly was in a democratic congressional primary gets my friend, who was not initially that was a very different experience. maybe someday i will repeat. i kind of doubt it. ime i was in a windowless room on the phone trying to beat money out of people. and it was the most frustrate frustrateing, i mean, i don't know how i didn't burn through more staff because it was very, very frustrating. and i don't think i knocked on a single door. not one. so i went from over 5,000 personal knocks on doors in 2008

to zero because i was in a room calling and asking for money to run this campaign. and that was, for me, that was really miserable. because what i got from going door to door and talking to people face to face was a real idea about what they were facing in their world. i could see their house, i could see their kids, i could, i could assess all sorts of things. a lot of them asked me for medical advice, actually, which i gave with a caveat. [laughter] so, yeah. see your doctor but, yeah, definitely a problem. [laughter] so, you know, that is something i really missed, and that's something that i credit the clean election system in arizona with really allowing me to do. and just to give you a bit of an idea how it works on the ground, because it's been will for so long, every -- been there for so long, every election cycle a very large, recycled book comes

out to every voter, and everybody expects it now. whether you're a clean elections candidate or not, you're listed as traditional or clean. you can put in a paragraph about yourself, you get a picture, you can put your web site and a phone number for your campaign, and that book has become kind of a mainstay of campaigning in arizona. people are expecting that, and they get it every, i guess, every two years. so it's really within -- and also there's a debate series as well. the clean elections system in arizona has the clean candidates come together and have, do a forum. so that's kind of how the system works there. and i don't want to take too much more of your time, but i do want to, again, thank all of the panelists, and i look forward to -- i believe there's going to be some time for questions. i look forward to answering any specific questions you might have of me. thank you. >> great, thank you. michael, do you want to say anything about, respond to any of the comments, or do you want to just go to -- >> [inaudible]

>> okay. usually i have some things i want to say, but i see so many people in the audience that i specifically want to hear what their questions are, so we'll just do that. one quick comment, i think sometimes -- especially when i hear matt talk about that role of the, you know, the going door to door for the $5 contributions, we make a lot of the distinctions between these systems, but sometimes they look a little more like each other than we sometimes think. and the importance of the qualifying contributions in arizona has always struck me as a really -- something that people i think didn't necessarily predict but is very important. let's go to the audience. please say who you are, you know, if you have an organizational affiliation, please say what it is. i'm going to go to one person i see who i know is from arizona, jonathan rouse. >> i was going to brag about that. [laughter] born and raised, no kidding, arizona. phoenix, not tucson. a big rationale for these programs is, of course, to reduce the power of special

interests and change the behavior of the way people actually vote after they're elected. do you have any evidence on whether these clean money and matching arrangements change the behavior of politicians in office, especially vis-a-vis interest groups? >> yes and in. yes and no. on the question of, you know, is there a quid pro quo exchange for campaign or dollars and comparing legislative behavior within arizona or any other of the fully-funded states, i don't know that anyone has done that. but there are two studies, one of which i am co-authoring with death maskett where we find that legislators who are elected using public funding in both arizona and maine appear to be more idealogically extreme relative to their party caucuses. so i've heard anecdotally candidates in arizona say, well, it's much easier now if you eliminate campaign finance

marketplace because it used to be to get elected you'd have to be kind of moderate, right? you'd have to go door the door or make the calls, and no one would give you money, you were nuts. but now -- again anecdotally -- what i hear is it's very easy to get. you know, you can go, for instance, just picking a side, if you're more conservative than the typical arizona legislator, maybe you can go to your church on sunday and pass your, pass the offering plate around with your $5 qualifying petition in it. and in one day you're qualified, right? there is none of that market vetting going on. so that was kind of theoretical reason for wanting to know that. but the evidence suggests, the very preliminary, unpublished evidence suggests that on both sides in both states that we've looked at clean-funded legislators are to the right and left of their respective caucuses. but that's all i've got.

you know, as far as -- [inaudible] >> and i think it's important to distinguish that system from, let's say, a multiple match system, right? so in other words,you've got 250 friends who are either in the sierra club or the nra or whatever, you can get your, you know, contributions together, your qualifying contributions together and get a big pot of money. in a lace like new york city or other -- in a place like new york city or other places, however, you can continue to raise. you don't just stop at the 250 close ideological friends. you reach out to a broad group, and you get more money as a result of reaching out to a greater number of people. so again, i'm not a fact guy, right? an empirical guy, but it is more likely that you'd have a broad spectrum of contributors. >> michael, i know you've done

work -- >> yeah. i want to respond both to jon and to michael. with respect to policy, it's very hard to do the research in a quantitative way. but we know that the main documentable influence of large contributor networks on office holders comes at the agenda-setting stage of the process. not on final roll call votes. that's why it's hard to do the research. we have tons of exampled evidence of bills being especially kept off, not passed. it's especially the negative power of stopping a bill from moving forward, but also

amendments to create special breaks for people. i don't think there's much doubt that this happens. the question is can you document that it doesn't happen in a clean election state. i haven't done that work. but i do know that a traditionally-funded state, especially working through party leaders, the agenda-setting states that's quite important. second, on the question of whether clean elections produces more extreme office holders, i want to get -- again, this time i won't get in the weeds. we have have a private conversation later. i just want to say that i strongly disagree with the paper that, the unpublished article. i have a different interpretation of their data. and i find words like

"extremist" to be misleading. but it's the data that i i think we will have in this conversation. when you move away from the clean election states, there has been, there have been statements out there that systems that favor small donors are more polarizing and will have a more polarizing effect on politics. campaign finance research says that that's not true. we looked at whether small donors are more polarized than large donors and whether -- and the answer is, no be, there's no evidence for it. and we have looked at whether the candidates to whom small donors give are more polarized than other candidates. and, again, with one or two clear exceptions, the answer is, no. in terms of both candidates and in terms -- and donors, there's really not much difference with

the one difference that small donors don't lobby. and that is a significant difference. >> so if i may just really quickly, this is, again, anecdotal. but i served with 89 legislators, and on one specific policy point in 2012, i believe it was 2012, there was a significant reform proposed to the clean election system, and, um, with some provisions it would have entered, caused some limitations. i believe it was going to make it more kind of like the new york system to a certain effect. and what you saw was some of the folks that i would describe as perhaps idealogically nonviable without a public funding system, they -- it was of very interesting to see the coalition of folks who came together to defend the existing clean election public funding system. and it did include many folks on

both sides. it was largely democrats, but then there was a very interesting subsection of the majority caucus that relied entirely upon the clean election system to get in there. so that's, again, anecdotal. but i do think it speaks to your point. >> [inaudible] >> um, in the case of those in the majority that i was observing to be part of that coalition to defend the existing system? i would say, yes. in arizona, again, in my experience. >> of course, it's helpful to have bipartisan and cross-ideological support. >> agreed. [laughter] worked out well. >> this is a really important question. i hope that after the paper with seth maskett comes out we can get, you know, i think it's really a vitally-important question. meredith mcgee. >> hi, meredith mcgee with the campaign legal center. one of the issues you guys had

not addressed yet is the role of parties. and i find this particularly interesting because when you talk to folks, play -- particularly on the republican side, many of their solutions deals with strengthening the parties. so one of the questions i have when you talk about looking at these matching systems whether arizona is what you think the appropriate role of party should be, one would say on one argument that they're a moderating influence, the other argument -- experience in illinois might be that the parties are a corrupting influence. so what role do you see the parties playing in these systems? >> well, as a fellow resident of illinois, i think you're spot on with your take. um, that's a tough question. i mean, i, i'm not a party scholar, and i think there is some debate among political scientists about how we should interpret parties. but i think the role of the party is, you know, when you talk to the party leaders

particularly in the assembly, they are looking in arizona at, you know, clean elections as a recruitment tool so that you can go, and you can fill out the seats where maybe no one would emerge to run to take on the incumbent who won with 68% last time. and it's just a way, you know, they're seeing it not as we're going to win the seat, but we're going to put out a full slate of candidates because a rising tide, you know, lifts all boats. so that, in my experience, is has been how the parties are kind of working with public funding. i'm not going to say that it's diminishing their strength. i don't think that's true. but i would actually be really interested to hear what spencer and michael think about the small donor matching program and the role of parties in those. >> um, i think it's important that we increase incentives for political actors; candidates,

parties, pacs to reach out to average americans and ask more people and engage more people in a serious way. i also think that i am a fan of public financing. i think it's an appropriately and entirely productive use of government funds. but i also think strategically we need some insurance policies so that when politicians in the future balance budgets and cut public financing money, we have other incentives to insure actors will, political actors will reach out not just to large contributorses, but -- contributors, but to average americans. as a result, i think that, you know, one idea that was brought to my attention by michael was the concept of allowing parties to spend more money on

coordinated expenditures with candidates when that money comes from small donors. or you could do the first $200 of any contribution. that's one thing. another idea that happened in colorado is a small donor pac where a small donor pac collects a smaller amount from individuals, average folks, but then it can give a larger amount to candidates than a conventional pac can. so giving these political actors incentives to and engage and bring more people into the process, i think, are keyment now, that doesn't deal with this underlying issue, and i'll let michael deal with that, of matching programs and parties. >> thanks. [laughter] i was going to start by saying i agree with spencer that we want

to encourage activity and not discourage activity. one problem with the way the issue is sometimes debated -- and meredith's phrasing of the question was a fair reflection of the way it's debated, but you stated it with skepticism. that is, we off -- often hear political party used as if it means the same thing in all places. clearly, it does not. a party in a strong speaker state with strong caucuses where the party carried the votes of the followers in his or her pocket, that's very different from a state where power is more dispursed, and the power of racing money is different. or the very large question, in

general i think one doesn't want to see the rules making it difficult for impossible for parties to work. under supreme court ruling, parties have the right to make unlimited independent expenditures. something that has label of party can become a vehicle for making unlimited contributions that are intended to benefit the candidate. if you -- 38 states that have contribution limits or the federal level where there are contribution limits on candidates, contribution limits on parties seems to be a necessary corollary. if you want it to mean anything, some people in some states don't want them to mean anything, and they behave that way. so you can't answer meredith's question in a short time, but it's a really important question, and it's the center of a lot of policy debates.

and i think the issue is too often romanticized. >> briefly again, anecdotally here, i've seen, actually, the recruitment concept definitely in the democratic party within arizona encouraging candidates to run. which, in some cases, when you have such -- even though we have incompetent redistricting in the state of arizona -- independent redistricting in the state of arizona which has been there since '92, i believe, we do have still quite a lot of lopsided majority either on the democratic or republican side s. sol the party's able to get candidates to challenge incumbents even though they may not have a high chance of necessarily winning to at least engage that, people of that district in a discussion, in discourse. so that's a good thing. i've also heard it also does, would pull money, right? if you're a challenged incumbent, you're going to start

working the district a little bit more, you're going to pay more anticipation to people in the ticket -- attention to people in the ticket as well. so from my own particular situation, i became really by virtue of the public financing system of interest to the democratic party. so that is how i would kind of twist that a little bit. i was -- the party didn't find me. even when i stumbled into the democratic party headquarters and presented myself awkwardly, they were still very kind of -- they weren't quite sure about me, they didn't know who, what that was about, and they didn't seem very interested in exploring that. so i would say that it can help, definitely help them with recruitment, though not necessarily in my case. >> hi. lee druckman, sunlight foundation. i'm going to ask a question that is in some ways an extension of the length question jonathan asks what is what happens in the actual course of governing.

this conversation was a lot about campaigning, almost nothing about governing. a lot about politics, i heard spencer mention the word "accountable" one time. so the high post sit -- and, actually, i mean, i think the evidence tends to support about public funding -- is, one, you get better and more diverse candidates who are more representative of the population as a whole and, two, you get candidates who are spending more time listening and talking to actual voters as as opposed to people who fund campaigns. therefore, you'd think that the people who are in office are more in touch with the general concerns of the populace at large. what happens is you have these matching funds or some system where you bring more people into the system, and then when you have the two years of the legislative session, that goes away. so you have people who are new to legislating and maybe voters who have gotten involved, and then there's nothing to support

their participation through that two years. so one hypothesis, my contention, is that what happens, that all goes away, and then you're left with this permanent class of lobbyists and special interests to help part-time legislators do what the lobbyists and special interests want them to do. so i guess my question is, are there insights from public funding that we can take to actual law making, and should we be thinking more about the two years of governing as a, as a complement to public funding? >> you know, we -- there are only three states with full public funding, and some of the experts are in the room, all right? but one has an impression but

there have been no political science studies that look at this comprehensively that the lobbyists similarly do not -- simply to not set the agenda as much in hartford as they used to. i can't speak about arizona, and maine is just a different place. new york city is different. you're not going far away. you're a subway ride from the legislative halls. and you live in your neighborhood. so this varies by place, but one of the mechanisms that lobbyists use to help control the agenda is not there. now, you have an hypothesis, i have an hypothesis. we both have the tools to do testing, but we'll acknowledge that nobody's really done it in a systematic way.

>> and let me just talk about values and norms, right? i think there is in this traditional reformer notion of a trustee republican notion of government where we want to free legislators from kind of private interests, they're going to operate using their best judgment as trustees. i have a healthy kept is schism of that vision -- kept similar of that vision of democracy. i would agree that over the course of a legislative cycle we want legislators to be accountable to citizens. not just lobbyists or a small group, but a broad and diverse group of people. and so just as a normative matter for me, that's one of the reasons that a multiple match is more attractive than a direct grant. and i understand there's some connection to citizens in is tense that you have to, you know, get 200 or 250 qualifying

contributions, but the movement of public financing toward a more kind of accountable, diverse group over a legislative cycle or over a significant period of time, i think that's a good thing from a democratic values standpoint. >> i would -- >> sorry, go ahead. >> i had a professor in grad school who also was a professor at my grad school. we used to say that government is born of the cold smoke of elections, you know? and so in thinking about these two kinds of systems we've been talking about, if you believe that, you know, dr. heinz, like add you say, i could assess the condition of the people that lived in my district, i think that bodes well for representation. if more of that is happening, if you believe that more of that is happening in the fully-funded systems, i think you're going at least in a place where you can

say there's evidence, preliminary evidence to think that that might be the case. but, again, we don't know. all we have is a hypothesis. i do agree, though, that the small donor match programs are, appear to be very effective. michael's got a very nice paper that suggests that the donor pool looks a lot more like the voting pool in these systems, and i think they're very promise anything that regard. so by merging the campaigning and the fundraising elements into one, i think you're also getting that out of these systems as well. so i think both points are correct. >> going slightly tangential, forgive me, but as having been in a legislature where we have four termed limits in place, what strikes me more than anything else is what empowers lobbyists and empowers

appointed, hired members of the staff. and i could observe this, because every two years between 30 -- actually, between 40 and sometimes 50% of the arizona legislature is new. every two years. and so the people that have the power, the people that literally write the bills and bring them to us and -- well, not me as a member of the democratic party so much, sometimes. but mostly to the majority, to the speaker, to the president's office, those are the lobbyists that have been there for 20, 30 years. and i'm not saying that's necessarily a bad thing, but what i'm saying is in my direct experience, that is what limited more than anything else the ability of legislators to, i this i, most faithfully represent their constituencies. because they didn't know what they were doing. we're trying to figure out where the bathrooms are, right? and there's always 40% of the legislature that doesn't know where the bathroom on the third floor is because they're new.

and so what you have in this craziness, everything's new and different, you have lobbyists, and you have when you're not quite sure if you should be trusting that lobbyist or not, well, ask the chief of staff. east been there for 22 years. that's probably a good thing, too, but the chief of staff is not elected and neither are your legislative counsel lawyers, right? so those people don't have to go door the door and ask the voters for anything at all. and so that is what really -- i know it's not directly the topic of panel, but term limits seemed to have more impact. >> yeah. i'm going to step out of role of moderator because nobody has endorsed the point you were making. i think it really reminds me of an article i just read recently by heather gherkin from yale law school, and she is basically arguing that because people have capacity to lobby are so

limited, we could think about some lessons that come from are are public financing for how to build that, build that information capacity for lawmakers in a broader way. and that could come from things modeled on a small donor financing system actually help ordinary citizens get their voices heard in a legislature or something more analogous to a full public financing system which would to create more centralized resources, and i think it's a real smart direction that she's laid out, and i recommend that article. probably on your mind. shannon brownlee. >> [inaudible] it's a nonprofit based in boston that's working on health care reform. and let me give you a little bit of background for my question. we're interested in promoting public deliberation around health care reform and health promotion.

so i'm wondering whether or not in this small donor model increases civic engagement not just at the voting booth, but also in people having conversations in their communities about what they want and how to get it, and does it actually increase people's ability to affect legislation, both -- so is it the conversation in the community and the legislation. >> yeah. gettingen gauged -- getting engaged in a campaign in a low cost way increases your civic knowledge which makes it easier to participate the next time around. so you increase social capital, political capital, and that's a plus in the direction you're talking about. but deliberation, public deliberation requires an enabling structure. it doesn't happen by be itself.

so it's a step to create -- a tool. it's useful but not sufficient. and whether a candidate does town halls, whether a candidate encourages it, whether the candidate uses this for deliberation as opposed to using it for a selling vehicle, that's -- those are all possibilities. but you don't move directly from one to another. what you do get out of this small toe nor is you model, you've broken through the one really important hurdle which is to get the person engaged and to get the person who is potentially in power to ask the person to be engaged. >> yeah.

again, door to door. that's, that's where, you know, where all those voter contacts occurred. and i know of actually from one year to the next i had, there were a variety of legislative candidates running around the same district, talking to the same people, and be those relationships really mean something. i know that there are many situations in which if a voter had given $5 to me, then they would refuse to give it to any finish they get very, you know, protective of grow because you have that -- of you because you have that bond. so you definitely are simulating that kind of, that sort of civic engagement, and then that can, i believe, go on to do other things. at the very least, you're teaching them about all the different levels of government, what your legislators do or are supposed to do and getting folks that maybe would only typically vote in a presidential year or for the president or u.s. senator or governor. you're getting them like, oh, no, no, that doctor guy came to my house, and what's this?

wow, judges. so no one votes for judges, we all know that. i'm kidding. yeah. i do think that i have no way to measure it, but i think in my own experience i could see that. >> i want to piggyback on this even though i've already spoken once on. but one of important differences between the clean election model and the matching fund model, most people are most willing to be engaged; that is, they know the most when you get close to election day. and what the clean election model does is it gets you to give $5 before most people have even heard of the candidate. it's strictly door to door. and then it shuts off. and the candidate does have to engage directly but doesn't have this lever, this vehicle. so that's why most of the people

who supported election funding and some are in this room are now looking at hybrid models where you can continue the small donor fundraising up through election day as a way of getting people into the system. >> further questions? david donnelly, i see you back there, and you were mentioned by name. do you want to comment on that -- [inaudible] >> i'm actually just raking it all in. >> terrific. i did see a hand. i saw somebody -- yes. >> hi, kurt walters with public campaign action fund. i was really interested, professor miller, by your emphasis on rolloff a opposed to turnout overall. if such a system was to be in place at the the federal level, do you think we might see a slight increase maybe since they're at the top of of the ballot in overall turnout rates?

>> i think so. for me, it was a -- well, yes, possibly. so now i'm already walking that back. i think my distinction in the book is merely theoretical because, as i said in the presentation, i just, it's really hard for me to get to a place where i believe that's the race you care about, that's the reason why you're going to go and vote, is state legislature. no offense be, dr. heinz. but i think people are really focused on the federal races as voters. the reason that they're going there. now, does a, you know, if a publicly-funded candidate, you know, is running for congress, does that make you more likely to vote? i'm not sure. i'm not sure that my findings are going to translate to federal races, and the reason for that is because most congressional races and

certainly the presidential race and senate races are already pretty visible, right? so where are you going to affect voter education and salience? it's going to be very marginal, i think. and so i'm not sure -- and others may have different thoughts -- but i'm not sure, the more i think about it, that we should expect higher turn from public funding because particularly since the proposed programs, you know, are going to be this 6 to 1 match and we're still going to have fundraising and there's no reason necessarily to believe the congressional candidates would totally do it in a face to face way, i'm not sure we would see those effects. i really do think, though, that we should give up turnout as the thing that we all want to seefect in. -- see effects in. >> i would just note that i think corruption and the appearance of corruption are important values and could be

affected -- effective in especially congressional elections. many of us have an idea that the president i is, you know, what we think of when we think of politics. and i think that that's just not the case because there are so many other political actors, and there's not as much transparency because there's not as much media cover averages right? and then also in terms of the presidency you're raising money from so many more people that a large contribution that's $35,000 even isn't as significant whereas if you're running for congress or you're running for statehouse or city council, a big contribution is important. and you -- there's not the leverage to attract those large contributions, because you don't have the celebrity. that's not at play. so i think that these other candidates are more susceptible, have to do more to raise money and are more vulnerable.

and i think that, you know, even though i personally believe that there are values other than preventing corruption that are important, i think that preventing corruption is key, right, especially with this supreme court and a multiple matching system can, you know, help prevent corruption especially at these lower level offices including house, u.s. house. ..

>> on capitol hill, the house will be returning at 5:00 p.m. eastern time. at 4:00 on c-span, we will take you live with paul ryan, who will be talking about social mobility at the brookings institution. you can watch his remarks live here for clock. -- 4:00 p.m. governmentthe finances. there was a $53 billion surplus in december. that is the largest since september and a record for the month of december. it was boosted by nearly $40 billion in payments from fannie mae and freddie mac. the treasury was running a deficit of 173 billion dollars in october. the deficit was 40% low the deficit during the same time last year. that is from the associate press.

>> michael powell, the former chairman of the fcc and now the president and cto -- ceo said several years ago it is the biggest thing that will change our state, the case. see the supreme court pick this up and find out one way or the other whether the service is legal under copyright law. what it does this year will be determined by a brand-new and very dynamic chairman, who used to head the wireless association and cta and he is not afraid to come out swinging. >> one of the biggest issues on the hill right now for the tech world will be surveillance reform. 2013 was a big year for surveillance. that will keep coming.

no leaks will keep coming, we're told. by the end of january, president obama will address his review group's recommendation. they put forward 46 recommendations, some of which the white house is likely to accept. some are getting more contentious and we it -- it will lay out where he stands on some of these issues. >> the technology and telecommunication issues facing lawmakers in washington this year. eastern on c-0 span two. nancy reagan was the first sitting first lady to adjust the united nations on the first to address the nation in a joint appearance with the president. >> for my young friends out there, life can be great, but not when you cannot see it. open your eyes to life. colorsit in the vivid god gave us, as a precious gift to children, to enjoy life to the full -- fullest.

to drugs and alcohol, just say no. >> first lady nancy reagan, in our original series, returns tonight live at 9:00 eastern on c-span and c-span three and also on c-span radio and c-span.org. >> before we go live to the brookings institution for remarks by paul ryan, a look at the public defender program created 50 years ago to also -- to offer free legal counsel. the discussion is from today's "washington journal. -- journal." host: on mondays we talk about your money. particularly today we are talking about free legal counsel for federal cases. our guest to explain the federal public defender program is the federal public defender for the eastern district of virginia. thank you for being with us. like my pleasure. good morning.

-- guest: my pleasure. good morning,. . host: what is the federal public defender program? guest: part of a program that provides representation to people charged with crimes in federal court. it is part of the criminal justice act that arose in 1964, following the supreme court's decision in gideon versus wainwright, status and counsel for people they could not afford representation when charged with the rhyme. as a result, congress passed statutes to try to make sure there would be the opportunity for people to have lawyers. that is a two-part system. one is the federal public defender system, in which employers of the government represent indigent defendants in an institutional function. the other is criminal justice act lawyers in private practice who are paying a relatively modest rate to represent indigent clients. those things together allow people who do not have enough money to hire their own lawyer to be represented in federal court.

host: we mentioned this figure of about $1 billion. from what heart of the federal government does it come from? how does it get disbursed? guest: while that sounds like a lot of money, it is literally a drop in the bucket of the entire federal budget. the entire judiciary, which is what we are a part of, the third branch of government, is point two of one percent of the entire budget. a total budget of about $7 billion. indigent defense counsel for about $1 billion of that amount. this is an infant has moral amount in the grand scheme of things. that money goes to pay for federal defender organizations and lawyers in private practice. host: there were a spate of stories that have been happening over the last couple of months, one of them in "the new york times." public defenders tightening their belts because of steep budget cuts. what is going on? public defendeg

their belts because of steep budget cuts. what is going on? guest: that is right. some tension has been brought to this issue. over the last nine months, like other parts of the federal government, federal defenders have suffered tremendously as a result of the sequester. defenders have suffered in particular, because the cuts they had to absorb cannot be absorbed in any way other than personnel. unlike other agencies that might have programs or weapons systems, for federal defenders it is just people. we go into court and we represent people in court and there is nothing else to cut. a, when we were faced with $52 million cut to our budget six months into the year, federal defenders had to manage that and stay loyal to their clients, because as lawyers we have ethical duties to not simply abandon our clients.

many defenders were faced with furloughs around the country. some offices faced as many as 20 days of furloughs, losing up to one month of salary. in my office, the eastern district of virginia, we faced the loss of an entire paycheck, every employee. that was not because of a problem managing the money. it was because we had no other way to absorb the cost. we have investigators, paralegals, lawyers. every day we go to jails, courts, we traveled to investigate cases. we did not have extra programs to cut. >> phone numbers are on the bottom of the screen for our guest. the federal public defender for the eastern district of virginia, michael nachmanoff, he just explained how his own office was affected by the sequester. calls, explaino -- this is a big country out there, why is this so important?

why should our viewers know about this? >> absolutely. the federal public defender system is really part of one of the most important parts of our government. is a constitutional mandate. a part of the government the congress created by choice. they thought it was a good policy decision. when the government this guides to prosecute someone and potentially take away their liberty, the constitution requires that they be represented by counsel. not a choice.s is the government must provide funding for this. the question is if they will continue to provide adequate funding for federal defenders and criminal justice act lawyers to do their job effectively in terms of quality of representation and cost- effectively. one of the ironies of the sequester is that costs have increased. federal defenders do nothing but appear in federal court. they have a lot of institutional

expertise. in virginia, in my district, many lawyers have clearances because the cases involve classified information. when federal defenders are cut, those defendants will still get lawyers. the constitution requires it. to payernment will have lawyers in private practice, many of whom are competent, but when you pay by the hour as opposed to the institutional defense function, you spend more money. ultimately whether you are in favor or against us, cutting this particular program has increased cost to the taxpayer. it makes no sense, from a political perspective, from a values perspective. this is about that rock fundamental principles. we believe in equal access to justice. we believe that regardless of your circumstances, when charged with a crime you have a right to have your other rights protected. this is not adequately funded, none of the other rights matter. ohio, for michael

nachmanoff. caller: what percentage of the cases are noncapital cases? for drug use, drug offenses. how do you get a defendant to follow up on the claim that they were inadequately represented by a public defender? good guest: --guest: questions. in terms of the total numbers, i do not know if i have that information, but in the federal drug prosecutions are substantial. traditionally they have been the largest category of crimes that were charged in federal court until the past year, when immigration offenses overtook drug crimes. for the first time, we have seen narcotics and drug crimes displaced by the volume of immigration offenses being prosecuted. the is primarily a on

southwest border. the number of capital prosecutions are very small. the federal government prosecutes a wide range of offenses. over the past 20 years or 30 years those offenses have expanded dramatically as congress has passed increasing numbers of criminal offenses that have given jurisdiction over criminal offenses in federal court. traditionally, the states prosecute crimes. still today, the states handle a far, far larger number than the federal government. as federal defenders we handle about 200,000, a little over 200,000 cases per year, and that is 90% of all the cases. 90% of people charged in federal court wind up with court appointed counsel, either a federal defender or a lawyer in private practice. times, after people are convicted, after a plea or a trial -- the caller made reference to ineffective

assistance of counsel. sometimes defendants feel that they want to collaterally attack their conviction. they can bring those claims. those are hard claims to make. the law is very difficult in that area, because courts believe in finality. if a person has gone through the trial and appellate process, the mechanisms for proofing ineffective but -- ineffective assistance of counsel is tandem -- as being can't amount to not having a lawyer at all, those are difficult lames approved. but sometimes there is merit to them. the court can, but is not required, to appoint counsel in those situations. host: you're the federal public defender for the eastern district of virginia. you have a private law firm that does this. how come? guest: i did. i had a wonderful time in private practice after clerking for a federal judge.

i had a wonderful experience in both places, but i always wanted to do public service. there really was no better way, in my mind, to do that, then to help people in the most vulnerable positions. people potentially being separated from their families. people charged with very serious crimes. sometimes alienated from their own families or society, they needed an advocate to stick up for them. it was appealing to me to have the opportunity to do something that i felt was meaningful. it is also one of those last areas of law where you can really get into court. just as with federal prosecutors, federal public defender jobs are much sought after, because you really get the opportunity to be in court and be a real trial lawyer. king steve is calling from george, virginia. caller: good morning. my son is in federal prison for

an analog drug charge. i would like to know -- he is trying to do his own appeal now, the first one to his attorney failed. if there is anyone who can help them with that? the first person ever convicted of an analog charge like this, for bath powder. guest: i am sorry to hear that. i wish him all the best. it is difficult for me to know, exactly, procedurally, what is going on with this case. the analog drug cases are relatively new. at least ones involving bath salts and other types of synthetic drugs or new drugs that have not arisen before. lawyershat his prior preserved any issues that there might be. know, i would recommend speaking to his private lawyers to see what his avenues of re- just might be. it is difficult for me to say

what help he could get at this point. republicangan, caller, natasha. welcome to the program. caller: good morning. host: morning. ,aller: mr. michael nachmanoff i applaud you for your services. so many people neglect the poor. it seems like these millionaire congresspeople that we have, they neglect the poor completely. they are so busy taking their four-day vacations, it is absolutely appalling. the neglect of the poor in this country, the poor and the people who do not have adequate employment. republican, i am absolutely toensed at what is happening the poor people who have lost their unemployment while these 175 thousand dollar per year people have a four-day work week . c-span, i wish you would do a program on the fringe benefits

that these people get. it is just appalling. this is not a country of the people, by the people, for the people. it is for the rich. i, myself, am -- i am a person of means. feelsam a person who sorry for those who are not as fortunate as i am and i applaud you for leaving the job that you did in trying to help the poor in this country, they surely need it. host: thanks for calling into our guest, michael nachmanoff. what types of cases are we talking about? guest: we represent the widest array of crimes that you can imagine. in the eastern district of virginia, where i practice, that

is particularly true. across the river we have a lot of federal a -- federal agencies , like the pentagon, the cia, and other federal agencies. have seen a lot of very high- profile national security cases, cases involving allocation -- allegations of terror and espionage. district also extends to the tidewater area. those cases also attract. they are very interesting and unusual. people accused of piracy from somalia, including capital cases from that area, because they have been flown in to face prosecution. we represented the alleged 20th hijacker just after 9/11, right after the office was opened. , and federal defenders across the country have frequently gone to the supreme court. because we represent so many of supreme court,n

these issues often arise and allow for federal defenders to litigate in the highest court. in the eastern district of virginia, we have been there four times in the last 10 years, which is a bit like hitting the lottery 10 times. [indiscernible] federal--host: can a defender turned down a case? how does it work? guest: excellent question. where i practice we have the stored league except in every case that the court has asked us to take. it is important that our lawyers, some of the best in the most seriouse the cases possible, but we cannot take cases where there is a conflict. the federal government often uses conspiracy laws to charge defendants. in any case involving more than one defendant where there are co-conspirators, federal defenders can only represent one

of those defendants. therefore the others would be represented by lawyers in private practice under the criminal justice act. in other parts of the country, almost always take the majority of cases, but some are able to decline cases if, for example, the caseload is too heavy or if they are burdened with an extremely large or resource intensive case. during the last fiscal year, for the first time in our 12 year a small i declined number of cases that i perceived would be really resource and staffing intensive. i felt that it would be inappropriate for us to take on cases that we cannot afford to devote the time and resources to . now that we are in the new fiscal year, we are certainly back to our old practice. but this is the problem with inadequate funding. it essentially can wear down the system, delay cases, and cause them away inturn

favor of an alternative that will wind up taking more time and costing more money. host: the phony, georgia, on the line with an independent caller. hello, there. caller: good morning, how are you guys doing? guest: fine. my question is, the disproportionate number of black men in jail right now, there is a negative stigma on public defenders. you say that you need more money, but why? when your program has failed these men. you keep an account of success cases as opposed to unsuccessful cases? do you have a number on that? guest: an excellent question. there are a number of parts to it. i really appreciate the opportunity to address the issues. the issue of race in the criminal justice system is a

serious one. the way in which the african- american community has been treated in particular, although all communities of color in the criminal justice system have been a source of great controversy. and tremendous unfairness in many parts of the country. not just any historic south. but certainly in the historic south as well. this is a subject that is particularly important to me, because in the eastern district of virginia we have the largest number of crack cocaine cases of any federal jurisdiction in the country. this is one of the most unfortunate and controversial areas of federal criminal law over the past 24 years. for many years public defenders and criminal defense attorneys, even judges and prosecutors's, decried in many places the on foreign us -- unfairness of crack cocaine sentences as opposed to powder cocaine

sentences. congress, when they pass the laws in the 1980s, made the penalties much harsher for crack cocaine over powdered cocaine. four years young black men were sent to prison for decades for nondrug -- nonviolent drug offenses for dealing what we would call very small retail amounts of crack cocaine. there are still many people serving long sentences for that. federal defenders were on the forefront of fighting that injustice. for many years they advocated to allow judges to take into consideration this very unfair, unwarranted disparity. i have the extraordinary privilege of arguing cases in the supreme court to address this issue. kimbro versus united states. where the supreme court agreed, after many years, that it was more than appropriate for therict judges to consider unwarranted disparity and disparate racial impact that had

caused so many young black men to be sent to jail for so long. as a result, judges have taken that disparity into consideration since 2007, imposing shorter sentences. they are still too long, but they are much shorter than they were before. as a result, this has helped thousands of defendants in federal prisons, most of whom, overwhelmingly, have been african-american, getting their sentences reduced. that was approved first by the sentencing commission, and then by congress, when they made penalties more lenient. the penalties now are and 18 to one ratio as opposed to a 100 to one ratio. there is still unfairness there. we still have a long way to go, but federal defenders have worked very hard for racial justice and to address the unfairness in the syst >> we will leave this

discussion. you can find the rest of it online and c-span's video library. we take you live to the brookings institution and washington, d.c. with paul ryan taking the stage right now. he will be talking about social mobility including community resources like churches and volunteer groups. we have a long day of discussions, started this ,orning with senator joe brandt and now we are talking about thertunity and poverty in united states. in our relentless attempts to be nonpartisan or bipartisan we began today with the democrats have german paul ryan of the budget committee. here is something that might surprise you. knowledge counts for a lot in congress. paul ryan's career illustrates

this claim. he was a former congressional staffer and we all know they are necessarily brilliant. second upon arriving in congress he looked around and asked himself, what makes this place run? the answer, of course, is money and the budget is the source of all money, so he decided he would learn more about the federal budget than anyone else. he knewn hour or two, more about the budget than anybody up on the hill. and of course the most senior positions on the hill are based on merit and logic, so it was natural he would become the head of the budget committee. another thing that might surprise you -- before he was so interested in me budget, he was very interested in issues having to do with poverty and opportunity. especially opportunity. he had top staffers in this area, which is always key to understanding what a member of congress is really concerned

about. recently, he has been doing an amazing thing, or just spending a lot of time in inner cities and other poor communities meeting with people who run programs for the poor. this is not exactly on the top of the list for most republican members of congress, so it's quite an amazing thing. he is learning from these poor communities and what policies they are driving into. so, chairman ryan? [applause] >> thanks so much, ron. over in thell hallway. talk.d i and ron had a i'm a big fan of their work. these jokesack about coming out of the incubator of the conservative think tank, but this is my fifth time. i do not think i can make those

jokes anymore. i feel comfortable. i am here to give a report on social ability, the opening. it came out six years ago. i read it last week. i'm grateful you invited me here. i'm very pleased to see this conversation occurring. they asked me to do two things. the issueow do i see of opportunity? ways towhat are some increase opportunity? what is opportunity and how do we get more of it? behind every opportunity is someone who takes a chance. you mentor a child. you advise the student. you hire someone. two people, normally strangers, pay for a bond and create value to spread knowledge, to help each other. so, i would say the key to andrtunity is trust. government, when used wisely, can increase that trust.

take one example. the interstate highway system. that is something we can all agree on. of course the federal government should build the interstate highway system, because that would encourage interstate commerce. it did for >> reason. the more -- it did for a simple reason. the more people interact, the more they trust. the more there is trust, the more there is collaboration. the more there is collaboration, the more there is economic growth. for me, when it comes to judging a particular policy reform, i have a really simple test. does it bring people together, or pull them apart? does it encourage trust and collaboration, or does it stifle them? powerfult is a very tool. too powerful, you might say. just as it can build and encourage, it can frustrate and it's her.

as a conservative, i look at ronald reagan and his insights. one of his insights is that tax breaks do not just take money out of people's pockets. they can take people out of the workforce. just as government can increase opportunity, government can destroy it as well. and perhaps -- there is no better example of government's missty to disappoint, to the mark then lbj's war on poverty. this month marks the 50th anniversary of that work. for years politicians have pointed to the money they have spent for the programs they created. but this way our spending trillions of dollars, 47 million people live in poverty. of seven people. that is the highest rate in the generation. it'se spending a lot, and

just not working. it is missing its mark. well, why? i think it all goes back to opportunity. poverty is not just form -- some form of deprivation. it is a form of isolation. if there is anything i have been learning, it is that. what we know about the poor? ron would say three things. they are less likely to have graduated from high school, they are less likely to work full- time, and they are less likely to have gotten married before they had kids. they have been taught off from three crucial sources of support -- education, work, and family. government is not solely responsible for these trends, but in other ways government is deepening the divide. for the past 50 years it has built up a hodgepodge of programs in a furious attempt to replace these missing links. and because these programs are so disorganized and dysfunctional, they pull families those are two

government and away from society in so many -- they pull families closer to government and away from society in so many ways. our goal should be to reintegrate the poor into communities, but washington has been locked up like they are in some massive quarantine. we need to bring them into our civil society. they are not fulfilling their potential, and we, we are all missing out. povertyto remember that is not some rare disease from which the rest of us are all of me in. -- from which the rest of us are all immune. expression of a widespread disease, economic insecurity. most families worry about making insmed me. that is why concern for the poor -- it's not some policy next. -- it's not some policyniche. it cannot be -- it is not some

policy niche. checked onome box the next contract with america. so, how do we bring in the poor? i'm afraid i don't have all the answers, but a little humility in washington might be a good start. today i would like to talk about a couple of ways to improve our ending poverty efforts. here are two ideas. complicity and standards. i think it would help us with one big problem that we call the poverty trap. you see, it turns out the central planners are not very good at planning after all. washington attacks problems with a haphazard, whack a mole approach. is no exception. it is the nature of the beast. before johnson became president, we have social security. johnson added programs. after he retired from office,

washington kept adding to the alphabet soup. the list goes on. urban institute, a man has done interesting work on the problem. because these programs were developed at different times, there is little coordination among them. are meanse they tested, poor families face discouraging tax rates. the government actually discourages them from making more money. what does this mean? with two kidsmom in colorado. if her income jumps, she will extraep much of her $30,000. according to these calculations if she enrolled in lands like her stamps, s-chip,

marginal rate will be as high as 15%. thehe is another programs, rate will reach about 80%. in other words, you go to work and you will keep less than $.20 of every extra dollar you earn. i'm sure she's not going to walk around with a calculator going where is my implicit marginal tax rate? but she gets it. the government is holding her back. this has to be addressed. the good news is, there is a better way to do this. policy makers are working on a solution to the problem all the way around. simplicity. in 2012, britain produced a far reaching reform. the government is putting this idea into practice. erupt.oing to there are no two ways about that. the basic concept is very simple. we should learn from their

experience. it took six programs ranging from housing to income support and collapsed them into one overall funding. familyre cut off once a made a certain amount of money with the old programs. with the new program, they are tapered off gradually. eitc gives workers a boost without hurting their prospects. yeah i.t. see increases employment among low skilled workers. ite the universal credit, gives families credit. it helps them take ownership of their lives. there is certainly room for improvement. just last week my friend senator marco rubio propose that workers get assistance once a month instead of once a year so it's easier for them to plan ahead. that is an idea in my opinion it

makes a lot of sense. but whatever form it takes place, we have to encourage work. there should be standards. concept.a novel in 1996, congress began to require people on welfare to work. and welfare rolls dropped dramatically. child poverty fell by double digits. the problem is, we have not applied this sensible far enough. we need to do more. man whoikes to say, a is involved at that moment, what works his work. way we to change the think about work. it is not a penalty. it is the shortest, surest route back into society. if you are working, you are meeting people. you are learning new skills. you are contributing to society. that is the westway -- that is the best way to get a raise or a

new job. we want people back in the work or so they can share their talents and their new skills with the rest of us. we are losing out as much as they are. in short, federal assistance should not be a way station. it ought to be an on ramp, a quick drive back into the hustle and bustle of life. we have got a lot more work to do. we have to tackle a host of issues. education, criminal justice, criminal reform, health care. performers at the state and local level are already doing a lot of this artwork. federal government should let them take the lead and learn from their example. said here is very radical, but you can already hear the howls of protest from certain corners. all i would say to the critics idease criticizing new and perhaps new thinking in a more effective war on poverty, all i would say is, we want to hear their ideas, too.

good intentions are not enough. concern for the poor -- concern for the poor does not demand a commitment to the status quote. it demands a commitment to results. we should not measure our results by how much we spend on welfare. we should measure our results by how many people we helped get off of welfare. later this year, i plan on saying a whole lot more about this subject. but before i rollout any policy prescription for were families, i need to hear more from the -- for poor families, i need you hear more from the real experts. the families themselves. if there is one thing i have learned from 15 years in congress, it is that washington does not have all the answers. in fact, sometimes they are right under our noses. my mother used to tell me -- son, you have two ears and one mouth. use them and that proportion. sometimes in congress i have lost sight of that.

heed that kind of advice. just as we need to run the numbers and study up on the issues. we need to help -- we need to listen the people we are trying to out, because they are the ones on the front lines. only the people in the community can solve the problems facing their community. trust is the bedrock of opportunity. federal government has to trust them with all of the respect to all the brilliant minds here at brookings and capitol hill -- we need all hands on deck. we need to enlist these poverty fighters, the people who never come to washington. we need to enlist these community leaders and working families in the real war on poverty. there is only one way to beat artie, and that is face to face. for too long -- there is only one way to be poverty, and that is face to face. to themselves,

i'm working hard. i'm paying my taxes. government is going to take care of us. in so many ways, the government has reinforced and encouraged this view. that is not going to cut it anymore. we need everybody to get involved. every person, community to community, face to face. the truth is in you are helping people in need, you are helping yourself. into reintegrate the poor our community as we will reinvigorate the country overall. with healthy, growing families will have a healthy, growing economy. at its best, collaboration does not just build a growing economy. -- it builds better character. it will make us a better country. le, thank you for your invitation. i look forward to the conversation. i think it is vital we make

every family part of the american experiment. and if we have a vibrant battle of ideas, we will get there and make this moment what it is. thank you very much. i appreciate it. [applause] >> thank you. interesting remarks. at that a lot of people in the audience are reflecting on them and thinking about questions it would like to ask you. but i'm the one who gets to ask you the questions, so -- a lot of what you say has the ring of white used to be called compassionate conservatism -- has the ring of what used to be called compassionate

conservatism. are you a compassionate conservative? >> i am not a fan of that term. it implies that conservatism is not compassionate. i think that it is the most compassionate form of government because it respects the dignity of the individual. it aims to have -- to help the most people have the best life. the condition of your birth does -- determine the outcome of your life. that is how i was raised. irish catholic family, from immigrants who came from the irish potato famine. wellave documented this so -- stewart over at heritage -- we are losing sight of it. we are losing mobility. we understand that. that whole generations of

americans do not know what this is. when you explain it or tell it to them, they don't think it is for them. that is a problem. i do believe that conservatism is the best answer for this, otherwise i would not be who i am. answer to know the the next question, and it will get a laugh anyway. tony blair said the only difference between compassionate conservatism and conservatism is under compassionate conservatism, they tell you they are not going to help you, but they're really sorry. [laughter] i'm going to guess you disagree with that. the leftdoes show that makes jokes about the sort of thing. i realize you do not like the term. but many things you discuss i think our part and parcel of what people think of as -- local, working face to face, helping people in the place where they live, listening to them. people ono you say to

the left to say that is not going to cut it? are advocates of the status quo or who advocated for the status of where we are right now say just you more of this, that does not cut it. for those who say it could be worse, that is hardly an effective answer. do we mean when we say conservatism? or why do we have better ideas? i truly believe that we have made the mistake in this war on poverty with the unintended consequence, mind you, that we have displaced immunity. that we have crowded out and pushed aside what many of us call civil society and we have told people in this country it is no longer their responsibility to help care for others. that is not saying this is just a convenient excuse for cutting a program or stopping the federal government's role role. government'sl

roll. no, i'm not trained to say that. i think the left made the mistake of thinking this was all about material deprivation. we isolated people in our communities and they put a wall separating people from integrating with each other. we need to tear down those walls, look at how these programs are doing harm, trapping people in poverty, and how we can refocus on an agenda of upper mobility, turning that escalator back on and getting people back into life. i always hesitate to say this because as a person in government, it sounds preachy, but you cannot ignore the culture. you have written all the stuff about marriage, the breakdown of family. these things cannot be ignored. it is not someone in washington who was going to solve this. this is media, churches, everything. barriersmove a lot of that are harming our culture. we can remove a lot of barriers

that are slowing down income mobility, harming economic growth and opportunity. that is what we should focus on. that to me is what a proactive positive conservative solution would look like. that programs. many people see you as a hero in this effort does you have tried to balance the budget. is that a necessary part of your war on poverty, to cut programs? >> it has nothing to do with a line on a spreadsheet. it has nothing to do with what the number ought to be. it has everything to do with is this working or not? working means people getting on with their lives and hitting their potential. our people having the best chance to make the most of their life in this society? i do believe that freedom, free enterprise rock or by keeping -- free enterprise brought forth by

keeping government limited is the best way to do this. that does not mean we believe no government. we men -- we believe a government that is effective. weare biting off more than can chew. we are crowding out civil society. we are presuming we can replace these missing links and civil society that just can't be replaced i anything but families. have --t this fight we i do believe we will lose this century. it does not matter if you read charles murray or any of these folks. we are on a dangerous trajectory in this country. the economy is a big part of that. slow growth is part of that. the greatest casualty is the least among us, the poor being trapped in poverty. i really believe we need to take

a look at this. when we apply our principles -- liberty, freedom, free enterprise, self-determination, subsidiaries -- along with solidarity and community, you can have a rich, vibrant mosaic of a society where people can really make the most of their lives. we can get back to those days of upper mobility where people come to this country or are born in this country and say, i can make it. i can be who i want to be. we can get there if we really compete for these outcomes. if we measure all the stuff, how much money we throw at it, what the spreadsheet looks like, we will miss the mark. but if we measure based on outcome and results, i feel like we can make a difference. let's assume you are right and the real problem is government and too many programs and removing too much authority and responsibility from local levels in churches and so forth.

can you actually foresee that you could convince some of the people in this audience and the people in the media and voters of wisconsin and the rest of the country, especially states like new york and california but that is true and the government is really in the way and if you that that is true and government is really in the way and if you balance the budget there will be a better result? >> why would i be doing this if i didn't believe that? [laughter] honestly. >> some people call it an heroic act and know you probably cannot convince people, but you know you are right. once said, of mine you do not want to be sitting on rockingnt porch in your chair with your grandkid on your knee and say, you know what, granddaughter? to hell ina went handbasket, i want you to know that i voted no every epoch the way. [laughter]

majorityeve that the of americans understand what is going on today is not working. that society is fraying at the seams. that we have to do something different. that the status quo is not working. and i think new ideas based on these ideals that were the founding principles of our country that made us special in the first place, i do believe the majority of americans can agree with this, can embrace this. if i did not believe that, why would i be doing this? what is the point? do i believe the principles of welfare reform that were majority principles in 1976 can the gun again? yes. they were. the results are very effective. do i believe that americans want a safety net that is effective, that is truly their for people in need? yes. conservatives believe that, too.

i think what happens in these lump someone into a character. this is a liberal who cares nothing about growing -- who cares nothing except about growing government. is person just want to help the rich, who wants no government. you know what? it's probably somewhere way in the middle between those two spears. -- those two spheres. on those caricatures, we will just do this all the time, we will just smash into each other. if we have a conversation about how to or economic development, a conversation about our culture, which is inherently nongovernment, i believe we can make a difference. and i believe a majority of americans still believe in the american dream, the american idea, and if they knew they could do something to build their communities, they will do it. i believe it can be done. yes, i do. end by inviting

-- when you do want to say what your agenda is. and i'm sure their audience will want to hear the specifics. >> after heritage, right? >> no, before heritage. [laughter] >> for joining me. >> please join me in thanking chairman ryan. [captioning performed by national captioning institute] [captions copyright national cable satellite corp. 2014]

>> and the house returns live in about 30 minutes. 5:00 eastern time. they will be debating three bills including one that would establish a peace corps monument in washington, d.c. the votes will take place at excellent 30 p.m. eastern. and then later this week they will work on a permanent funding bill that would keep the government funded through the rest of this year. you can see this live on c-span when members return shortly. a memorial service for prime minister ariel sharon was held in jerusalem. we heard remarks from vice president joe biden on mr. sharon's personality and work for his country. close with aork country like israel, a country that is tested as much as

israel, loses a man like prime minister sharon, it does not leader.e the loss of a it feels like a death in the family. many of my fellow americans, some of whom are here, feel that same sense of loss. i say to prime minister sharon's , anded and devoted son's the entire family, particularly the sons who spent so much time caring after their father the last few years. it is a great honor to bring the sympathies of the president and the american people to you on this occasion. netanyahu, toter

president peres, the grieving men and women of the nation of israel, but most particular to an fellow warriors -- i fear attempt to capture him and what he stood for is beyond my capabilities. i knew him for over 30 years. man.s not only a powerful he was a powerfully built man -- as a young senators, young senator, when you first met him, you could not help but understand as they say in the military -- this man had a command of presents. he filled the room. time i was invited to his office, he said to me, i remember thinking, is he serious? he said "senator, you are mostly welcome."

i did not know whether it was a matter of something being lost in translation or whether he was pulling my leg, as we say in the state. moments with a few them and realized how incredible his hospitality was. on the topic of israel's security woes, which it always, manys, always did in my meetings over the years with him, you immediately understood speakersquired, as the referenced, the nicknamed "bulldozer." he was indomitable. was a complex man. about whom you have already , who of his colleagues engendered strong opinions from everyone.

leaders, alloric real leaders, he had a north star that guided him. the north star from which he --er -- in my observation never deviated. was the survival of the state of israel and the jewish people wherever they resided. talking about is spiritual attachment to the land of israel, in an interview in the before990's, he's read " and above all else, i am a jew. is dominated by the in 300uture in 30 years, years, in 1000 years.

that is what preoccupies and interests me, first and foremost." funeral service for ariel sharon who served as israel's 11 prime minister. in 2006 he suffered a stroke and was left in a coma until his death on saturday. he was 85 years old. you can watch more of the program around 1:30 a.m. eastern time here on c-span. we will be talking with congressman scott rigel about the 2014 federal spending on the bus will on "washington journal." and then we will speak with a l aboutntative nick rahal a chemical leak in his state of west virginia. then a discussion of how many

doctors are needed to implement the health care law. plus, we will be taking your calls, e-mails, and tweets. >> the case as i see it is one of the bigger cases that could transform communications. michael powell, the former chairman of the fcc, current ceo said the because thing that would change our case is the ariel case. potentially the supreme court take this up and find out one way or another whether area service is legal under copyright law. what the fcc does this year will be determined i -- >> what the fcc does this year will be determined by a very dynamic chairman, tom wheeler. he is not afraid to come out swinging.

the biggest issues for the tech world will be surveillance reform. it will be up to a year for a bigllance -- 2013 was year for surveillance because of the snowden leaks. president obama will put forward recommendations. happen which will likely in steps off the bat. some will likely be contentious. the technology and communications leaders facing lawmakers in washington this year tonight on "the communicators" at 8:00 eastern on c-span2. -- it's aacy and nancy was the first -- reagan was the first first lady to address the nation. >> open your eyes to life. thatt in the vivid colors

god gave us as a personal gift enjoy lifedren, to to the fullest and to make it count. for the rest of your life, when confronted with drugs and alcohol, just say no. nancy reagan as our series "first ladies: influence and image" returns at 9:00 p.m. eastern on c-span. >> u.n. inspectors are expressing misgivings about the amount of access they will have two iranian nuclear sites. under an agreement on january 20, iran's nuclear program will come to a stop for the first time in decades. here is more on that now. >> it was a busy weekend.

-- thatd us that they it fell short of what they need to investigate. do you need? and if they do not have the access to do this properly, what you say to those in congress arguing for greater sanctions? >> i have not actually seen the iaea comments. on january 20, when the joint plan of action is implemented, we are going to have the most access we have ever had to these types. sites.to these daily inspector access. access in iraq. the iaea is taking the lead on verifying and confirming what the iranians confirmed to doing.

i think it is significant to note that for the first time in almost a decade next week the iranian program will come to a halt. in terms of the congressional aspect of this, i think the fact a concrete, taken tangible step in implementing this agreement. all the things you mentioned, stopping 20% enrichment -- all the things they have committed to will start happening on the 20th. we will make the case to congress that for all the people who have talked about diplomacy, we are making concrete and tangible progress. one should do anything that could possibly derail the progress. this is the best chance we have had for diplomatic resolution the arena nuclear program and who knows when we will get this chance again?

-- i rainy and nuclear program and to win we will get its chance again -- iranian nuclear program and who knows when we will get this chance again? we need to get this done. >> [indiscernible] to be able to do their job? we have known the limits on the irani and seen before -- iranian before. do they need full access? >> we have not -- i have not seen those comments. we believe that full transparency was a good step forward. it gives us daily access. monthly access in a rack. things we have never had before. insight we have never had before. clearly this is not enough.

the first death is not enough in any of these air -- the first step is not enough in any of these areas. for the first time, we will have transparency into their nuclear program. why would anyone want to do anything -- especially something that does not even go into --ect at the current time that could possibly close the doors on this progress? why would you want to do something that could possibly result in inspectors not being allowed in on a daily basis? that could derail negotiation? if you support diplomacy, you should not be doing things to actively undermine it. understanding -- they are not dismantling the facility is because the iranians have said that they have invested almost a decade and it's -- in it?

>> a couple points on a rack. the first step -- a couple points on iraq. the first step -- there are all host of things they cannot do on the first plan of action. there will likely have to be some dismantling. that will be negotiated over the next x months and a comprehensive agreement. is there willound be a complete halt and we will increase monitoring. if the goal is to prevent iran nuclear weapon, building a road does not do anything to impact that one way or another. me.ou could not hear i was here yesterday. >> i know. i meant to call on you.

was that your question? >> yes. >> i'm glad you got to ask you. yes? forgoing anyot enrichment level? is that good enough? >> good enough in what way? >> he said that iran would not would not that iran have in enrichment level above five percent. >> we have always said the ir weres, if they said they only wanted a peaceful nuclear program, they could prove it. that is what this is about. if the focal their commitments under the plan of action, that is certainly credible. words are not enough given the history here. that is why we need to see

actions. that is why it is so important that on january 20 we will see tangible concrete, actions that could be to a comprehensive agreement. >> [indiscernible] do you see that as a positive agreement with iran and the region? >> we see this as a separate one. we have been very clear about that. it places like syria and lebanon created as stabilizing role in many of these countries. i do not have a comment on prime minister sharif's visit. obviously he has been part of the nuclear negotiations. more on iran? anything else on iran?

ok, lucas. then i will go back to you on iran. have said they will continue to enrich beyond 20% and kill the chamber transit line. is that in keeping with the spirit? >> the current status of iran's nuclear program -- including specifically its nuclear program and the reactor -- regardless of what they do between now and then, they will halt production of 20% enriched uranium. they will start to dilute half of the 20% enriched uranium and to a form notst suitable for further enrichment. at the end of the six months, they will have completed the dilution of 20% enriched uranium or converted.

regardless what they do between now and then, if at the end of six months if they are faithful to their commitment, they will have completed the dilution of 20% of the stock of about -- stockpile of enriched uranium. >> do you think this is equivalent to binge drinking or eating before you go on a diet? >> i don't and i'm not going to use that term. they have an obligation to fulfill their commitment. we have a clear idea about the difficulty, but they have committed on their own to do these things. so, we expect them to stand by their word and fulfill their commitments and again that speaks very clearly to the 20% uranium stockpile. they are very acidic, the -- very specific, detailed about what they have to do in the six months. >> [indiscernible] >> i'm not going to guess what their motivations are. yes? andnd the house coming back

in about 10 minutes for a debate on three bills including one that would establish a peace corps monument in washington, d.c. for 6:30es scheduled p.m. eastern. you can follow those speeches when members return shortly. in the meantime, we will take a look at health-care spending. this is from today's "washington journal." >> we are going to look at health-care spending. it went down as a percentage of the u.s. economy. can you explain why and what is going on what cap care costs? it seems the last few years there has been a healthion or easing of

care costs. they are still going out. it is still 17%, 18% of the economy. it's not rising as fast as it used to. inis rising more or less line with the overall growth of the economy. which, if you think of it, there is still a lot, but it becomes more affordable when that bill is rising more or less with the growth of the economy, as opposed to galloping ahead. what are the contributing factors to a more steady increase, more steady growth rate? if you step back, there is a big debate going on about that. a lot of people think that it is effecty still a hangover from the economic recession, that it just took so much out of

us, so much out of the country that people have been reluctant to spend on anything, even others are saying, no, the recession has long been over. on controllings health care costs. andsee this from employers from the government also. guest: --host: thank you for joining us. we want to encourage you to call our guest. uninsured call this number -- if you are insured -- to call.lenty of time we want to dig in just a little

bit more with our guest. the report that came out -- here are some of the details. the u.s. spending -- expenditures about $2.8 trillion. the average cost per person, 915 dollars. any insight into those numbers? $915 -- $8915. any insight into those numbers? it's interesting. most of us think about it and say, wow, i did not spend that much. is the average adjusted for those of us who get really sick each year. when you see that average, it is not the picture of how health- care spending works. most of the cost goes to sick people in any given year. the percentage rates was slower

than the growth of the economy, share shrink a little bit, and that is unusual. another slide. it illustrates what we are talking about with health care costs. it's down a little bit in 2010, down from four point seven percent and then 9.7 was the highest growth rate. can you give us more of a ?istory lesson to 2012?o back you have to look at the

economy. is have to look at what coming online in terms of new drugs. it is a complicated picture. down to one ored two >> factors. certainly the economy plays a big part in this. is also a big driver spending on drugs, spending on new medical procedures, things of that nature. host: let's plug the report into this. the president called this report the vindication of his health- care policies. tell us why he is saying that. what is the rationale for that kind of assessment?

the nonpartisan experts to pull together the report have said the affordable care act has "minimal" impact. the major parts are starting to roll out now. sharper cost control measures are still in the future, although medicare has not started. the administration has said there is an overall tone set that is driving the system, guiding insurers to look for greater efficiency in the system. first call for our guest, david in cincinnati. you are calling on the line for the uninsured.

[indiscernible] theensatory damages and cost. i would like to see the go back to trial. their clients pay back the excess amount of money for those four years. thanks, david, for that. are you still there? are you insured? caller: [indiscernible] on tort reform, that is an area where it seemed like it toht be possible under obama find some common ground between republicans and democrats. because he was open to the idea of looking at malpractice laws. it is something that never came about.

it never came to fruition. instead, what was done in the affordable care act was to invest in some pilot programs that would look at different ways to handle malpractice cases, to keep out of courts. the congressional budget office found there would be savings as a result of malpractice reforms, so, this is an area that will probably be revisited at some point down the road. host: let's hear from doug on the line for uninsured in utah. caller: i am calling regarding your statement that health-care costs have dropped. my question is, i believe the reason why they're coming up with that cystic that health care has dropped is because they have cap to the economy snuffed down to the point people do not have jobs and cannot afford health care and even if they do have health care, they cannot

afford to go to the doctor because they do not have jobs to pay for any of it. therefore, but not propping the economy up, they are able to say health care costs have gone down when they really have not. it is because no one has the money to even go to the doctor because there are no jobs to pay for it. host: hang on the line if you can. i want to follow-up. go ahead for our guest. guest: they have not gone down. the government is not saying the costs have gone down. they are still rising. the change is that they are not rising as fast as they used to. they are going up more or less in line with the overall economy. what economists say is that it makes it more affordable, as a nation, to cover our health care expenses. as to your rationale, your

explanation, a lot of people believe that is what is going on. a reduction but a-- it is not t slowdown in health-care costs. is the result of continuing effects of the economic recession. people out of work. people afraid of losing jobs. are expressing is one of the major explanations that they offer. >> we now take you to the floor of the u.s. house. ons to suspend the rules on which a recorded vote or the yeas and nays are ordered or on which the vote incurs objection under clause 6 of rule 20. record votes on postponed questions will be taken later. for what purpose does the gentleman from washington seek recognition? mr. hastings: mr. speaker, i move to suspend the rules and pass h.r. 1513. the speaker pro tempore: the clerk will report the title of the bill. the clerk: union calendar number 162, h.r. 1513, a bill

to revise the boundaries of the gettysburg national military park, to include the gettysburg train station and certain land along flum run and cumberland -- plum run in cumberland township. and for other purposes. the speaker pro tempore: pursuant to the rule, the gentleman from washington, mr. hastings, and the gentleman from arizona, mr. grijalva, each will control 20 minutes. the chair recognizes the gentleman from washington. mr. hastings: mr. speaker, i ask unanimous consent that all members may have five legislative days to revise and extend their remarks and include extraneous material on the bill under consideration. the speaker pro tempore: without objection. mr. hastings: i yield myself such time as i may consume. the speaker pro tempore: the gentleman is recognized. mr. hastings: thank you, mr. speaker. mr. speaker, h.r. 1513, sponsored by our colleague from pennsylvania, mr. perry, would revise the boundaries of the gettysburg national military park. the park will now include the site known as the gettysburg train station. the historic depot where

president abraham lincoln arrived and departed via train in 1863 to deliver the gettysburg address. currently the depot is owned by the burro of gettysburg but will be donated to the national park service. however, the depot will continue to be operated by a local or nonprofit organization . in addition, h.r. 1513 -- 1613 includes within the park a 45-acre -- 15-13 includes within the park a 45-acre parcel. i'd like to thank again, our colleague, mr. perry, for including property right protections in his bill that allows the park service to acquire property by donation only and requires that owners have -- be provided written consent prior to property being included in the park boundary. with that i support the bill and reserve the balance of my time. the speaker pro tempore: the gentleman reserves the balance of his time. the gentleman from arizona. mr. grijalva: thank you, mr. speaker. i yield myself as much time as i may consume. the speaker pro tempore: the gentleman is recognized.

mr. grijalva: thank you. the battle of gettysburg is one of the civil war's most revered and remembered events. over the course of three days in southeastern pennsylvania, approximately 50,000 americans lost their lives in the battle. turned out to be one of the turning points in the war. this tragic sacrifice will always hold a unique place in our national history and story. but it was the he will quans and humanity -- eloquence and humanity of president lincoln's address that has helped it ndure for 150 years. h.r. 1513 expands the boundaries of the gettysburg national military park to include gettysburg's train station and the 45-acre plot known as plum run. the burrow of gettysburg plans to donate the train station to the national park service so they can incorporate this significant resource into their efforts to appropriately protect gettysburg, its story and its contribution to our

nation. by authorizing the park service to accept the donation, h.r. 1513 makes this possible. this bill passed out of committee by unanimous consent and i am pleased that we are able to vote on it today on the floor of the house. we support h.r. 1513, urge its adoption and reserve the balance of my time. the speaker pro tempore: the gentleman reserves the balance of his time. the gentleman from washington. mr. hastings: mr. speaker, i am very pleased to yield four minutes to the sponsor of this legislation, the gentleman from pennsylvania, mr. perry. the speaker pro tempore: the gentleman from pennsylvania is recognized for four minutes. mr. perry: thank you, mr. speaker. i rise today to urge my colleagues to support passage of h.r. 1315, a bill to revise the boundary of the gettysburg national military park to include the lincoln train station which is an important part of our nation's history. president abraham lincoln arrived at the lincoln train station the day before delivering his historic gettysburg address. the station also served as a hospital during the battle of gettysburg and transported wounded soldiers after the

battle. lincoln train station currently is operated by the gettysburg convention and visitors bureau and is owned by the burrow of gettysburg. the gettysburg foundation, a nonprofit partner of the park, secured the necessary private funds to purchase the train station from the burrow of gettysburg. the foundation will donate the train station to gettysburg national military park, will be used as a downtown visitors center and meeting place. h.r. 1513 also allows the boundaries of gettysburg national military park to include 45 acres of land along plum run in cumberland township. this property currently abut thes land already owned by the -- abus land already owned by the national -- abuts land already owned by the national park service. the park was recently commemorated the 150th anniversary of the battle of gettysburg and the soldiers' national cemetery. in addition to preserving our heritage, such historic

preservation and tourism efforts remain a critical part of the regional economy. more than 235,000 visitors took part in the 10 days of 150th anniversary events and contributed about $100 million to the local economy. now, once the battle of gettysburg ended, both union and con federate armies moved on, leaving this small rural town to deal with the bloody and chaotic aftermath. citizens were forced to care for the wounded, bury fallen soldiers and animals, rebuild their town and begin the process of preserving this hallowed ground. like the residents of gettysburg 150 years ago, the group of dedicated individuals, 18 to 20,000 from across the country and across the world, have come together to preserve this battlefield and increase public understanding of the causes and consequences of the battle of gettysburg and its place within the context of american history. at a time when federal and state budgets are tight, the

great partnership between the gettysburg foundation, main street gettysburg and the burrow of gettysburg and the national park service has led to the construction of a new visitorses center. the preservation of the painting, the restoration of the battlefield to its 1863 appearance and now the preservation of the historic lincoln train station. this legislation simply is the latest significant piece of that puzzle. all interested parties are fully supportive of the boundary revision and because the lands already owned by the gettysburg foundation and to be donated to the national service know, i repeat, no federal funds will be used to purchase these properties. this legislation is good for gettysburg, the national park service and the american taxpayers. i urge my colleagues to join me in support of h.r. 1315, the gettysburg battlefield bill, and i would also like to thank doc hastings and the committee for their unanimous support and the ranking member. with that, mr. speaker, i yield back the balance of my time. the speaker pro tempore: the

gentleman from arizona. mr. grijalva: mr. speaker, i yield back. the speaker pro tempore: the gentleman yields back the balance of his time. the gentleman from washington. mr. hastings: thank you, mr. speaker. i yield back the balance of my time and urge adoption of thes remainlusion -- the bill. the speaker pro tempore: the gentleman yields back the balance of his time. the question is will the house suspend the rules and pass the bill, h.r. 1513. those in favor say aye. those opposed, no. in the opinion of the chair, 2/3 of those voting having responded in the affirmative -- the gentleman from arizona. mr. grijalva: on that i request the yeas and nays. the speaker pro tempore: the yeas and nays are requested. all those in favor of taking this vote by the yeas and nays will rise and remain standing until counted. a sufficient number having arisen, the yeas and nays are ordered. pursuant to clause 8 of rule 20, further proceedings on this uestion will be postponed. for what purpose does the gentleman from washington seek recognition? mr. hastings: mr. speaker, i move to suspend the rules and pass s. 230. the speaker pro tempore: the clerk will report the title of the bill. the clerk: senate 230, an act to authorize the peace corps commemorative foundation to establish a commemorative work in the district of columbia and its environments and for other purposes.

the speaker pro tempore: pursuant to the rule, the gentleman from washington, mr. hastings, and the gentleman from arizona, mr. grijalva, each will control 20 minutes. the chair recognizes the gentleman from washington. mr. hastings: mr. speaker, i ask unanimous consent that all members may have five legislative days to revise and extend their remarks and include extraneous material on the bill. the speaker pro tempore: without objection. mr. hastings: i yield myself as much time as i may consume. the speaker pro tempore: the gentleman is recognized. mr. hastings: thank you, mr. speaker. mr. speaker, s. 230 would authorize the peace corps commemorative foundation to establish a commemorative work on federal land in the district of columbia, to recognize the foundation of the peace corps and the ideals upon which it was founded. the project must be planned and constructed with nonfederal funds and executed consistent with the commemorative works act which includes a moratorium for projects on the national mall reserve. with that i urge adoption of the bill and i reserve the balance of my time. the speaker pro tempore: the gentleman reserves the balance of his time. the gentleman from arizona. mr. grijalva: thank you, mr. speaker. i yield myself as much time as i may consume. the speaker pro tempore: the gentleman is recognized. dwri >> i thank you. last --

mr. grijalva: thank you. last november we marked the 50th anniversary of president kennedy's tragic assassination. losing president kennedy left a lasting scar on the american psychee. but his legacy lives on through his words and ideas. including the establishment of the peace corps. an institution that has sent over 200,000 americans to 139 countries in its 52-year-old history. s. 230 authorizes construction of a memorial to commemorate the mission of the peace corps and the values on which it was founded. i cannot think of a better way to celebrate president kennedy's legacy and the tremendous accomplishments of the peace corps. with passage of s. 230, we'll be sending a worthwhile bill to the president's desk. i'm glad we've been able to put our differences aside and pass such a meaningful combill in the first few weeks of the new -- bill in the first few weeks of the new year.

representative kennedy who has sponsored this congress deserve our thanks for the diligence in getting this legislation approved today. with that i reserve the balance of my time. the speaker pro tempore: the gentleman reserves the balance of his time. the gentleman from washington. mr. hastings: thank you, mr. speaker. mr. speaker, i'm very pleased to yield three minutes to the gentleman from wisconsin, a former peace corps member, mr. petri. the speaker pro tempore: the gentleman from wisconsin is recognized for three minutes. mr. peterson: i thank my colleague for -- mr. petri: i thank my colleague for yielding. i rise in support of the bill before us, s. 230, which would authorize the peace corps commemorative foundation to establish a memorial in our nation's capital to honor the formation of the peace corps and the thousands of volunteers who have represented our american ideals to communities around the world for over 50 years. i was honored to have the opportunity to serve in the peace corps in somalia and saw first hnled the contribution that peace corps -- firsthand

the contribution that peace corps volunteers make to the communities they serve. the continued selfless and noble service outside our borders remains a testament to the american ideals embodied by the peace corps volunteers i have served with and those who have serving our nation today -- who are serving our nation today. the creation of the peace corps by congress and president john f. kennedy in 1961 marked a fundamental turning point in american foreign policy. the values and ideals of america were put into action to help meet the needs of people and communities in developing countries through volunteer service abroad. when i was serving we were taught that we were representing the american people, not necessarily the american government. therefore i believe that a memorial to mark over 50 years of service by our fellow americans, that is paid for with voluntary contributions, is an appropriate indication of the public support for all the volunteers that have and will

continue to represent america in many different societies around the world. the memorials in washington, d.c., tell a story of people and events that have shaped our nation's history and our fundamental ideals. the founding of the peace corps was an expression of those ideals and will continue to inspire new generations of americans to embrace the belief that we can and should reach out to uplift those around us. as such, i believe a memorial commemorating 50 years of peace corps history and volunteerism would be a meaningful part of the national capital landscape. encourage my colleagues to consider this bill in the spirit in which it's being offered, as a privately funded commemorative effort and join me in supporting s. 230. with that i yield back the balance of my time. the speaker pro tempore: the gentleman from arizona. mr. grijalva: thank you very much. let me yield as much time as he may consume to the gentleman from massachusetts, the sponsor of this house companion to the legislation, mr. kennedy.

the speaker pro tempore: the gentleman from massachusetts is recognized. mr. kennedy: thank you, mr. speaker. mr. speaker, i rise today in support of this piece of legislation. i want to thank the chairman and ranking member for their diligence and their hard work in bringing this bill to the floor. i also want to recognize my esteemed colleague from wisconsin for his service in the peace corps and his dedicated public service every day since. i recognize my fellow returned peace corps volume there's that are on the floor as well -- volunteers that are on the floor as well. mr. speaker, this piece of legislation seeks to recognize the commitment not just of peace corps volunteers but some of the core values and ideals of our country. as a returned peace corps volunteer myself, serving in the dominican republic, i got to see some extraordinarily dedicated american citizens working day in and day out in some very tough circumstances, every day, over the course of their over two years of service. of all the memories that come up in your 27 months abroad, one has particularly stuck with me. about a year or so into my service, i was on my way back

into the nation's capital on a bus initially designed for probably about eight. there were 20 people crammed into it. i was in the second to last row with a backpack on my lap. when an older gentleman tapped me on the shoulder and asked in spanish, inquiring if i was a peace corps volunteer. apparently i didn't blend in quite as well as i'd hoped. . he didn't have any running water. and peace corps brought clean water to the village. he at that point thaad me, not for my work -- point thanked me, not for my work. he never asked where i was from or what i did. he just said thank you. a few moments later the bus stopped, he got off and i never saw him again. it's that generosity of spirit, that dedication to the ideals and values of this country that peace corps represents and that to monument will seek

commemorate here in our nation's capital for time to come. i want to thank the peace corps volunteers who serve in congress and thank them for the hard work they did to make this come to fruition and i yield back the balance of my time. the speaker pro tempore: the gentleman from washington. mr. hastings: i reserve. the speaker pro tempore: the gentleman from arizona. mr. grijalva: i yield as much time as he may consume to a returned peace corps volunteer who served his two years in ethiopia, the gentleman from california, mr. garamendi. the speaker pro tempore: the gentleman from california is recognized. mr. garamendi: i thank you, mr. grijalva, and i thank the chairman for bringing this bill to the floor. what is there to say? 150,000 or more men and women from america have gone out across the world to give the country, the is

service to assist in numerous ways everything from teaching to community development and everything in between. y wife and i were one of those -- two of those 150,000-plus americans. our service was in ethiopia, and it's hard to say coming back from those years what actually happened. what actually happened is progress was made. the school in which my wife taught now has computers in their school as a result of her work and the work of her students who came back 30, 40 graduated they had elementary school to help in their school, to carry on the tradition of service. this particular piece of legislation, which simply authorizes an effort by nonprofit organization to build a commebcommen are a tiff program here in washington, d.c. -- commemorative program here in washington, d.c. no federal money is needed.

there is a long, long process that will lead to the col minuteation of this, but i believe -- culmination of this, but i believe seeing tens of thousands of returned peace corps volunteers and young men and women that want to become peace corps volunteers came to washington to commemorate the 50th anniversary. so now a year and a half later here we are moving this piece of legislation. we ought to do it, and ultimately i believe that there will be a commemoration. some memorial here in washington, d.c., that will speak to peace, will speak to the yearning that americans have for peace around the world, for a better world for all of us, wherever that may be, whether it's in the former soviet union countries or in those developing countries in africa, asia or in latin america. this is a good thing. and i'm going to give just one

more example. in the year 2000, a group of returned peace corps volunteers returned to ethiopia and eritrea in the midst of a war in which some 50,000 were killed. that group of returned peace corps volunteers were able to speak to the heads of state. the u.s. government couldn't nor could other governments, but it turned out that both of those heads of state were taught in their high school by peace corps volunteers, and they were willing to talk to those returned volunteers, and from the discussions came formulation of the settlement of that war. you never know where the impact will be felt, but i know it's felt in every country in which peace corps volunteers have served and it's felt here in the united states and in this congress by men and women that have served in the peace corps. i yield back my time. the speaker pro tempore: the gentleman from washington. mr. hastings: reserve my time. the speaker pro tempore: the gentleman reserves. the gentleman from arizona.

mr. grijalva: thank you, mr. speaker. i yield as much time as he may consume to another returned peace corps volunteer, the gentleman from california, mr. farr, who served his two years in colombia, and who has sponsored this legislation in previous congresses. the speaker pro tempore: the gentleman from california is recognized. mr. farr: thank you, mr. chairman, for yielding and thank you very much for scheduling, mr. chairman, for bringing this bill to the floor. i'm so proud that this bill's being brought to the floor by a kennedy. president kennedy appealed to the youth of this country with his inaugural address. i was a junior in college when e was sworn in, and that speech, which has been so repeated so much of asking this country to think about what people in this country could do to help the country rather than the government helping them, that called for action, and day 7,209 volunteers are spread out in 65 different countries around the world. in president kennedy's last

state of the union address, he said this -- nothing carries the spirit of the american idealism and expresses our hopes better and more effectively to the far corners of earth than the peace corps. that is true today as it was in the 1960's. and what is so wonderful about this moment of sort of history and the folks that play in it is when i went into the peace corps in south america, the nickname -- because the kennedies were so popular, particular -- kennedys were so hijos , werpped called de kennedy, children of kennedy. we have a child of kennedy -- joe kennedy is now a member of congress who can now carry this legislation. the torch is getting passed to a new generation. i carried this bill before and i was glad to pass that torch

to joe. he's going to pass that to his children and other children and we're going to keep the peace corps alive. and this commemorative that we're going to do here in washington will remind the world that the peace corps is our best hope and chance for world peace. thank you very much. the speaker pro tempore: the gentleman from washington. mr. hastings: i'm prepared to close if the gentleman is prepared to close. mr. grijalva: thank you. the speaker pro tempore: the gentleman from arizona is recognized. mr. grijalva: yes, thank you, and before yielding back the remainder of our time, let me -- let me congratulate the sponsors of the legislation, mr. kennedy, mr. hastings for moving this rapidly through our committee, our chairman, and to the alumni of the peace corps that are part of this great body and to say this legislation marks an acknowledgment of this great country providing to the world its greatest resource, its people. their talent, their intelligence and their drive.

and with that yield back the remainder of my-time. the speaker pro tempore: the gentleman yields back the balance of his time. the gentleman from washington. mr. hastings: i yield myself the balance of the time. the speaker pro tempore: the gentleman is recognized. mr. hastings: mr. speaker, i just want to say that -- which was repeated i think every member that spoke on this legislation, that this legislation will require no federal funds. when you think about that, from the volunteer standpoint of those that went overseas and did what they did in their missions, i think that this is fitting that we should establish something from the private sector that commemorates what they have done on behalf of our government. i think it's a good piece of legislation. i urge its adoption and yield back the balance of my time. the speaker pro tempore: the gentleman yields back the balance of his time. the question is will the house suspend the rules and pass senate 230. those in favor say aye. those opposed, no. in the opinion of the chair, 2/3 having responded in the affirmative -- mr. hastings: mr. speaker, i ask for the yeas and nays. the speaker pro tempore: the yeas and nays are requested. all those in favor of taking this vote by the yeas and nays will rise.

a sufficient number having arisen, the yeas and nays are ordered. pursuant to clause 8 of rule 20, further proceedings on this question will be postponed. for what purpose does the gentleman from washington seek recognition? mr. hastings: mr. speaker, i move to suspend the rules and pass h.r. 841 as amended. the speaker pro tempore: the clerk will report the title. bill. the clerk: h.r. 841, to amend the grand ronde reservation act and to make technical corrections. the speaker pro tempore: pursuant to the rule, the gentleman from washington, mr. hastings, and the gentleman from arizona, mr. grijalva, each will control 20 minutes. the chair recognizes the gentleman from washington. mr. hastings: mr. speaker, i ask unanimous consent that all members may have five legislative days to revise and extend their remarks and include materiel torles on the bill under consideration. the speaker pro tempore: without objection. mr. hastings: i yield myself such time as i may consume. the speaker pro tempore: the gentleman is recognized. mr. hastings: thank you, mr. speaker. mr. speaker, h.r. 841 clarifies the administrative process for the grand ronde tribe in oregon to apply for new trust lands as long as the lands are within the tribe's original 1857

reservation. the bill also deems property placed in trust for the tribe after 1988 to be part of the tribe's reservation and adjusts the tribe's reservation act to reflect several previous trust land acquisitions. mr. speaker, in 1954, congress terminated the grand ronde tribe and its 60,000-acre western oregon reservation. while congress restored the tribe in 1983, the process of rebuilding the land base for it has been done in a somewhat piecemeal fashion, beginning in 1988. the problem lves the grand ronde tribe has when it applies to the department of interior for trust lands within its former reservation area. applications for such land are considered under a set of offreservation rules that are quite cumbersome. requires the

department to treat land acquisition on less cumbersome reservation rules. it does not land acquisition on less cumbersome reservation rules. it does not establish the 1857 reservation. it was reported favorably out of the natural resources committee and has bipartisan support from the entire oregon congressional delegation. i also want to point out that the suspension text contains an amendment to the reported bill. the new language prohibits the grand ronde tribe from gaming under the indian gaming regulatory act on all lands it acquires through the department's on-reservation process unless the lands are within a two-mile radius of its existing rural casino. within the two-mile radius, existing restrictions under the indian gaming regulatory act remain in effect. and with that, mr. speaker, i urge adoption and i reserve the balance of my time. the speaker pro tempore: the gentleman reserves the balance of his time. the gentleman from arizona. mr. grijalva: thank you, mr. speaker. i yield myself such time as i may consume. the speaker pro tempore: the gentleman is recognized. mr. grijalva: thank you. h.r. 841 makes technical

corrections to the confed rated tribes of the grand ronde reservation act. in the past, efforts by the -- is ve been hindered hindered in its effort to restore traditional land by a very cumbersome and long process. the bill would end the current two-step process that requires the tribe to take the form of reservation land into trust with approval from interior and then get congressional approval to be designated reservation land. and it would allow the property taken into the trust within the boundary of the tribe's original reservation after september 9, 1988, to be part of the reservation. congressman schrader is to be commended for his leadership on this legislation and his commitment to working on behalf of our first americans. h.r. 841 has wide support, including the entire oregon delegation, and i urge its passage today.

with that i yield back. the speaker pro tempore: does the gentleman reserve his time? mr. grijalva: i reserve. the speaker pro tempore: the gentleman from washington. mr. hastings: i reserve my time. the speaker pro tempore: the gentleman from arizona. mr. grijalva: i'm pleased to yield as much time as he may consume to the sponsor of the legs, the gentleman from oregon, mr. schrader -- legislation, the gentleman from oregon, mr. schrader. the speaker pro tempore: the gentleman is recognized. mr. schrader: the confed rated tribes of the grand ronde, was terminated by the federal 1954. ent in at that time they not only lost their federal recognition but also its original reservation over 60,000 acres. in the decades that have ensued, 1954. at that time they not only memb have worked tirelessly to rebuild that grand ronde community. 1983, these efforts had the grand ronde restoration act followed by the grand ronde reservation act of 1988 which established the land to the

tribe. the tribe has continued their pursuit of securing its sovereignty by acquiring parcels and much-needed jobs and services to tribal members. unfortunately, the tribe's efforts have been hampered by a process, as you've heard. after the tribe acquires a parcel of land and fee, the tribe must prepare a fee to trust package and the b.i.a. process this application either on or off reservation. because the tribe does not have exterior reservation boundary, all parceled are processed under the oftentimes off-reservation process, even if the parcel is located within the original boundaries of the reservation. introduced h.r. 841 to correct this problem and streamline the bureaucratic

process the tribe continues to face as it continues to bring parcels into trust. any property located within the boundary of the and streamline the bureaucratic process the tribe continues to face as it continues to bring parcels into trust. any tribe's original reservation will be treated as an on-reservation land for the purpose of processing it into trust and deemed part of the tribe's reservation, once taken into trust. once enacted, h.r. 841 will not only save the grand ronde time and money, which will be bet remember served for their community and membership, but also the land to trugs responsibilities to the grand ronde thus saving taxpayer money. there's no opposition in my state by state officials or local governments and c.b.o. scores this as no cost to the federal government. i'm proud to say h.r. 841 has the delegation's support, the bureau of indian affairs' support, unanimous support by the two counties affected by this legislation. i want to thank my oregon counties, in particular, for continued support and efforts in bringing this move forward. i'd like to personally like to hastings, an

chairman grijalva, young, defazio, hanabusa for their assistance in moving this important piece of legislation forward and the tireless efforts their staff has put forward, particularly travis and chris. finally, i'd like to thank the members of the grand ronde who have been very, very patient throughout this whole process. with that i ask members to support this important bill and yield back the balance of my time. the speaker pro tempore: the gentleman from washington. . mr. hastings: i have no more requests for time. i'm prepared to yield back if the gentleman will yield back. the speaker pro tempore: the gentleman from arizona. mr. grijalva: mr. speaker, i yield back the remainder of our time. the speaker pro tempore: the gentleman yields back the balance of his time. the gentleman from washington. mr. hastings: mr. speaker, i yield back the balance of my time and urge support for the legislation. the speaker pro tempore: the gentleman yields back the balance of his time. the question is will the house suspend the rules and pass the bill, h.r. 841 as amended. those in favor say aye. those opposed, no. in the opinion of the chair, 2/3 of those voting having responded in the affirmative, the rules are suspended, the bill is passed and, without objection, the motion to reconsider is laid on the table. pursuant to clause 12-a of rule

1, the chair here is more now. states, whether we agreed or disagreed for the specific policy has been unflagging in its commitment to the state of israel. we have never stepped away. we have never diminished our route -- support.

never we have never failed to make israel's case around the world or failed to defend israel's legitimacy. of thisn any corner world has any doubt about where america stands with regard to israeli security. the independent state of israel. for is the ultimate refuge jews, wherever they are in the world. that will never change. said, those obama who adhere to the ideology of rejecting israel's right to exist might as well reject the earth beneath them. so long as there is the united states of america you are not alone. part, ariel sharon

greatly value a close friendship between the united states and israel. years asrly during his prime minister he worked hard to deepen a relationship. of ariel sharon possible moral service, he served as israel's 11th prime minister in 2001-2006. he had a stroke in 2006 and was left in a coma until his death on saturday. he was 85 years old. you can watch more of the service around 130 a.m. eastern time here on c-span. ariel cases one of the bigger court cases that could potentially transform the communications sector. in the ceo al couple of years ago said the biggest thing that would change

our space is the ariel space. we will see the supreme court potentially take this up and find out one way or another reo service is legal. it will be determined by a very new dynamic chairman who used to head the ctia in the cable assertion. he is not afraid to come out swinging. >> one of the biggest issues on the hill right now is going to be surveillance reform. 2013 was a big year. that will keep coming. by the end of january, president obama will address his review groups recommendation. they've but forward 36 recommendations. getting more contentious and will lay out exactly where the white house

stance on some of these issues. technological issues facing lawmakers in washington this year. tonight on "the commune of -- "communicators." the firsteagan was sitting first lady to address the united nations in the first to address the nation in a joint the president. >> life can be great. not when you cannot see it. open your eyes to life. to see it in the vivid colors that god gave us as a precious gift of his children. to enjoy life to the fullest and to make it count. say yes to your life and when it comes to drugs and alcohol "just say no." first lady's returns tonight at 9:00 p.m. eastern on c-span and , c-span radio, and c-

span.org. scott rijo morning will be with us to discuss the congressional compromise over the final chilean dollar on the this bill with government expending -- funding expiring on wednesday. then we will talk to nick. he will be the ongoing response to the chemical leak. dr. grover of the association of medical colleges will answer a question post by one of you. how many doctors are needed to implement the health-care law. we will be looking for your e- mails, phone calls and tweets like tomorrow at 7:00 a.m. eastern. before the house returns we will take a look back at a washington journal discussion this morning about the future role of the u.s. in afghanistan.

we are here to talk about iraq and afghanistan and other matters. we begin with this headline. could be here without u.s. troops. bring the two together. trying to picture the country without u.s. troops next year. they may want to cast an eye toward a rack. they defeated al qaeda as unleashed ways a deadly car bombings. >> i do think that we have to be careful about withdrawing our

support and assistance for afghanistan to quickly. i think a lot of progress has been made. the afghan security forces are now leading the provision of security across the country. need our help. i do think that if we pull out completely or to quickly and even cut off our assistance role we could find ourselves with afghanistan sliding back into a more chaotic situation that would provide opportunities for the broader insurgency. dynamics are somewhat different. he has taken a increasingly secretary and approach. he chose a more sectarian path and tried to start marginalizing them, tried to accuse political rivals of crimes, he withdrew

support from some of the sunni security forces and so forth, and created the situation he is now dealing with, a very alienated, marginalized sunni population in anbar that because of their dissatisfaction opened a fertile ground for al qaeda to come back in. the drivers of the situation are somewhat different. host: our guest will be with us for 35 for 40 more minutes. we will take your calls and tweets. phone lines on the bottom of the screen for michele flournoy. host: there is also this recent headline -- "karzai unlikely to meet the deadline on signing the long-term security deal." this from a u.s. envoy. can you give us the latest their and your thoughts on it?

guest: as you know, the u.s. needs a new agreement with afghanistan to have a legal basis to continue to provide military advice, assistance, training beyond 2014 when the current mission ends. this would not be u.s. troops in a combat role. it would be and advise and assist role behind the scenes. karzai, for reasons that are hard to understand, has refused to sign the agreement, even though the jirga, which he convened, overwhelmingly encouraged -- urged him to sign the agreement. every presidential contender in afghanistan would come out in support of the agreement. it is hard to understand why karzai isn't going forward. some argue that he doesn't want to be a lame duck and this is his final act of relevance. it is hard to know what is going on in his mind but it is

complicating u.s. and nato planning. the longer this delays, i think karzai is risking putting us in a position where it would be hard to make good on the commitment that is very much in u.s. interests. host: before we go to calls, let's shift back to iraq. we are talking about both with our guest michele flournoy. there is a headline in "usa today" and the title "losing iraq." we want to show you a clip of senator john mccain on a cnn morning program yesterday about the significant violent upticks in iraq. [video clip] >> this president wanted out. we got out. they would never say the number of trips they wanted to have their, so maliki is going his own way and we are seeing a

dramatically increased iranian influence in iraq. >> watching what is going on in iraq now, you think there is absolutely nothing that the u.s. can do that might help purge certainly the al qaeda members out of iraq? >> no, no, i apologize if i gave you the wrong impression. first of all, no combat troops, obviously. let's get that out of the way. but we could provide them with assistance, we could provide logistic support, we can provide them with apache helicopters. but at the same time, maliki has got to have an anbar awakening. he has got to reach out to the sunnis, he has got to have reconciliation. when we left and the iranian shia influence increased, and by

the way, we could have kept a residual force their and anybody who says we couldn't have is not telling the truth. i would suggest perhaps sending david petraeus and ambassador crocker back to their. maliki trusts them. and try to get this thing sorted out, because it is not just iraq. when you look at iraq and syria, you are seeing an al qaeda enclave there, and that is dangerous to national security, not to mention what is happening in a serious, where again, the united states is disengaged. thank god for the saudi's. we are starting to see a little bit of reversal there, thank god. host: michele flournoy, what is your take? guest: i think, actually, we heard from the white house yesterday that the u.s. is redoubling both its diplomatic outreach to maliki and its offers of assistance in terms of intelligence, technical support, military equipment, and so forth, to try to bolster iraq possibility to deal with this

renewed threat from al qaeda. i think it ministration is pressing maliki on this issue. i think senator mccain is right that the key issue is maliki and getting him to renew his outreach to the sunni community to pursue a nuclear reconciliation effort, which, frankly, he hasn't done during his time in office. where i would differ with senator mccain respectfully is on the history. i think this president sought an agreement to keep some number of u.s. forces in iraq. i was very much a part of that process. but at the end of the day, i think maliki understood he had to take such an agreement to his parliament.

he believes at the time that his opponents would use the vote as a no-confidence vote to take his government down. he wasn't willing to go forward. no secretary of defense, no president should be willing to put american troops into a country without legal protection and immunity. it is not a tenable position. host: here is one of the headlines to back up what our guest is saying. "u.s. officials say maliki seems ready to listen on aid, outreach." this from "the washington post." we have a fourth phone line this morning for veterans. we look forward to speaking to all of you. and just the broader headline -- "losing iraq." this is "usa today." michele flournoy, a broader view of what has happened in iraq,

what is happening now? guest: i think that iraq has had a tremendous opportunity to move forward, and in some ways it has functioning security forces and so forth. again, the real problem in iraq has been prime minister maliki's pursuit of a very sectarian agenda, missing the opportunity to actually foster reconciliation, building a multi-sectarian coalition, and so forth. that is really what he has to turn to now. that is what the u.s. is pressing him to do. whether he can credibly do so at this point in time is an open question. iran has been pushing him in other directions. i think that what is happening

on his border with syria with the unrest in the chaos inside syria is part of what is creating this opportunity for al qaeda. this is a much more complicated and dangerous situation. i think maliki is going to have to work very hard to recover. i think we need to do the right thing to help him move in that direction if he is going to go there. host: our guest is the former administrator of politics. tom is our first call. omaha, nebraska. independent caller. caller: good morning. i'm afraid your guests will not be happy with what i am going to say. why in the world, unless we wanted karzai to reject the national security, to send a woman to present an ultimatum to the president of the islamic

country? guest: he's referring to susan rice recently making a trip to meet with president karzai and talk with him about the importance of finding bilateral security agreement. a couple of things. first of all, i do not believe investor rights did present any ultimatums. the premise of your question is faulty. my own experience working with a number of senior afghanistan officials is that they have no trouble healing with women in their official capacity. that is based on my own experience working with the minister of interior and defense and so forth. the bottom line is this an

agreement is in the national interests of those countries. it is in our interest because we do not want them to become a safe haven for al qaeda again. it is an afghan's interest because they understand while they have made tremendous progress building their own security forces, they still need the help of international community. if none are allowed after 2014, you will see dramatic withdrawal of aid and it will be tough for the afghan government to survive. host: we have timothy on the line, independent. caller: good morning. thank you for taking my call. the truth is this was started by george bush and those guys running the republican congress

now. i do not understand why they have to find money to extend unemployment benefits. about $15 trillion and all the stuff that comes with it. it is making no difference. no matter if we stay there or put more troops like mccain said, it don't matter what we do. this will come out the way it will come out, it will come out that way. we cannot go around and force other nations, no matter how big they are. we tried it in vietnam and we

always make the same mistakes. "we need to forget about it and protect ourselves from these terrorists." i'm getting ready to get off, but they have made a war and they made this thing of terror and that is the new way of them to get us to spend all of our money to do these things overseas. we spend more money than the rest of the world put together. our military do. it is ridiculous. host: thank you. let's hear from our guest. guest: there are two different questions. the intervention in afghanistan was in direct response to being attacked on 9/11 by al qaeda, which was basically finding safe haven in afghanistan and

pakistan at the time. i think what we do now does matter in afghanistan. if the u.s. and the national community can continue to provide a modest amount of support going forward, i think the afghans have a chance to secure their own country to prevent al qaeda from coming back and, to improve their situation. again, prevent the country from becoming a safe haven again for terrorists. the question of the cost of the iraq war, going into a major war without having a policy to pay for it, without figuring in the tremendous cost of that decision, i think that is something, a set of lessons for the history books, and something we should consider as we craft u.s. policy in the future.

host: we talk about afghanistan and iraq but we have a map here about how al qaeda continues to grow and they see it in the middle east. nigeria, libya, mali, syria, iraq, and afghanistan. pakistan, somalia. they point out in the wake of the death of bin laden, affiliates have acted increasingly independently. any thoughts on what you see there on that matt? -- map? guest: the united states has made tremendous progress, but the organization has morphed into these much more independent, still verlyn's regional affiliates in all the countries you mentioned.

u.s. strategy needs to place an emphasis on helping to build the capacity of those countries to deal with those groups locally and be effective in trying to limit their growth and access to safe haven and so forth. host: deer park, washington, independent caller. caller: you have -- you will not have a good time on the phone today because you talk a lot and say nothing. three points. immediately ban all in contractor theaters, theater contractors. immediately initiate a draft that covers everybody. immediately issue war taxes to pay for this nonsense. you have been playing this game, meet the new boss, same as the old boss, barack obama versus alaska. nothing changes but your problem

is people are waking up to you. the pain level here is getting high enough and the media cannot cover it so you come on and blab for 20 minutes and it is the same noise. what is our mission? will we be everyplace a couple of muslims get into a fist fight? help me out with this one. guest: hard to know where to begin on that one. i am not in the administration anymore. second of all, i am not advocating u.s. boots on the ground wherever there are disagreements with the islamic community. i am advocating for a very modest continued u.s. presence in afghanistan, not in a combat role, but to support the afghan national security forces in completing their training so they can stand on their own and secure their country on their

own, and so forth. in terms of banning contractors, i think we need to do a careful scrub of the appropriate and inappropriate rules of contractors on the battlefield. we have probably gone too far relying on private security companies and the like as opposed to our military forces. with regard to a draft, i think it is hard to find anyone in today's volunteer force that believes going toward the draft at this point would not undermine the superb quality of the all volunteer force. the fact that we have a truly professional force, a force able to deal with a much more comp lex task of war fighting today, i agree that we always want to make sure we have a connection to the american people, that the american people support the

missions we undertake, but i do not think a draft is the right answer at this point. host: jeremy, democratic caller. caller: good morning. i would like the interviewee there to comment on the interesting aspect, the difficulties we have. you made reference to the lessons of history. we are dealing with cultures that there are. what about the lack of veracity in statements they make an statements and contrary actions they have taken. how do we deal with countries that have not followed through and do what they say they will do? how can we have any kind of good faith relationship with any countries like those? i will just take the comments off the air.

thank you. guest: you raise an important point, that when you negotiate with leaders of a country, you better take the time to understand how they approach negotiation, what cultural perceptions and traditions are, etc. if we think people will sit across the table and think and speak the way we do, we can get ourselves into trouble. the good news is, what i have seen is when we have gone into negotiations with other countries, our state department representatives have, as far as i've seen, done their homework to understand those cultural factors. at the end of the day, when we make agreements with countries, we have to ensure there are both verification and accountability measures in place to make sure we can hold him accountable to whatever they do agree to. host: on iraq, a tweet for our guest. james asked any chance the

rebels are using guns acquired from syrian's we are arming? guest: i think we cannot be confident of where their source of weaponry is coming from but what i can say is i think u.s. efforts to arm more moderate rebel groups in syria has come with a number of steps or measures to try to ensure those weapons do not fall into the wrong hands, don't fall into the hands of al qaeda. whether that has been 100% foolproof, i do not think anyone can say. the groups you are seeing pop up in iraq are not the groups we are supporting and arming in syria. >> afghanistan, a couple of headlines. abc news. a bomb kills two in afghanistan. this happened sunday.

if you look at the front page of "the new york times" this morning, you will see the gilded head of a buddhist statue being displayed inside a case at the national museum of afghanistan. they are saving the relics now that were destroyed by the taliban, 300. the taliban have been painstakingly reassembled. awaiting for their turn for restoration. interesting piece in "the new york times." james is calling from arkansas. independent. good morning. caller: this is a bit off topic.

i am a disabled vietnam veteran with agent orange. there is something the american people are not aware of. c-span has never talked about it and i would love for them to have a program about this. it is about blue water sailors and soldiers and marines and stationed offshore, denied any disability benefit because they did not have a boot on the ground. this was passed by congress. i spoke with my senator. i spoke with my congressman. they are both republicans. senator cotton told me something interesting. he said, we are aware of this problem, but we cannot afford it. we cannot afford to reimburse these people. i was sickened. i was absolutely sickened, my congressman telling me that. my brother was on the uss

intrepid, anchored 800 feet offshore. he died of agent orange prostate cancer. the v.a. doctors recognized and stated in his military medical records that he died of that. because he did not have a boot on the ground, he was denied his disability. this is atrocious. you talk about veterans that are forgotten. these veterans are forgotten. please, c-span, please do a program about this atrocity that the american government has put on the veterans of vietnam. host: thank you for calling. guest: james, thank you for your service. i am disturbed to hear this story you have recounted. i do not know the particulars of

your brother's case, but i do know the v.a. in recent years has actually opened up access for agent organ victims for veterans who experienced gulf war syndrome and so forth, liberalizing their access policies, which is part of what has created some of the backlog in claims, but i think opening up the access is absolutely the right policy, and i would hope you would continue to press your case. if we can go back to one other comment, a headline cited about the various taliban bombings. it is true these bombings continue to take place, but if you look at their scale and scope, while any civilian loss is a tragedy, they tend to be very limited. that is because the afghan security forces have actually made sufficient gains that the taliban is no longer taking a lot of territory. they are no longer winning battles in rural areas.

they are left to these small one-off individual suicide bomber tactics, which i think is actually a sign of the challenges they are facing in gaining any momentum -- or in regaining any momentum in their insurgency. host: a tweet -- why did you leave the administration? guest: it was an honor, and i would not trade the experience of working for president obama for the world. but i have three kids who i wanted to have them recognize me when i walk through the door. two of them are about to leave for college, and this is a very precious time to have a little bit more time with my family. host: the second part of the tweet is, what do you think of robert gates? we have a clip just this morning when asked about the afghanistan

surge from this morning. here is what he had to say. [video clip] >> but the decisions were right and i believe he believed it would work. let me say, in a way, it parallels president bush in 2006 when bush began to have reservations. >> what is your idea of the overall idea of the book coming out and the secretary? >> since the book has not been available to anybody but journalist yet, it i have not had the chance to read the final version in its entirety. i do not want to say much on that. but i think what you heard from secretary gates now is that i

think, what was interesting to me serving the president obama and secretary gates is more often than not, they agreed on policy, particularly in the case of afghanistan strategy and the way forward. host: "gates defends critique of the president." he was on sunday morning yesterday and spoke about it. he defended the criticism of the president's handling of the afghanistan were. he said, "i do not think waiting until 2012 to weigh in made any sense." moving on to elizabeth in maryland. caller: good morning. host: you are calling on the republican line. caller: thank you for your service. i wish we had more women of your capability and your caliber so thank you so much.

but what i wanted to know is that early on, i was able to attend -- they would take people about 20 minutes and let them see some of the hearings of the attacks on 9/11. i have tried to keep up with it through the years because i am not hard over either way. i think everybody is trying to do the right thing, frankly. i was wondering, when the "usa" paper was put up on the screen and you saw the activity and the different countries that had the al qaeda presence in them, i keep going back to the funding. who is encouraging and funding and promoting, you know, the network? that was what some of the hearings that we were able to attend were about, as the former

cia director had described it. he said it was kind of like a spider web. with all of the war activity and the huge amount of years that have gone on, could you give -- get into a little bit more of why these people seem to be playing both sides of the fence? it seems like they go in, and then, we have to go in and mow them down. could you tell me about where we are with getting a handle on who is funding them and how we can go about lessening that effect? again, i thank you so much for your service, and have a good day. guest: i think since 9/11, we have paid a lot more attention to the funding sources for al qaeda and its affiliates. it has elevated the role of the

treasury department. they have established a whole new office to pursue terrorist financing and try to figure out how we disrupt that. the truth is a lot of these terrorist groups are networked with other kinds of organized crime, illicit networks that use drug money and money laundering, all kinds of illicit activities to fund their terrorism efforts. that is something i think has received increased attention. it is also a huge part of our diplomatic efforts. when we find a source of funding coming from the gulf or europe or another region of the world, we integrate that issue into our bilateral relations and really to the extent governments have impact try to press them to change their laws or behavior, to try to stamp out that funding.

host: larry on twitter wants a bit of a history lesson from our guest. he writes, what was the reason for the surge in afghanistan initially? what did it accomplish? why ddi obama announce a surrender date at the start? guest: when obama came into office, he conducted a major afghanistan strategy review. where were we, how is it going, and what was needed? at that time, what we found was the taliban-led insurgency, they hade the momentum. they were gaining ground and territory in gaining influence. we were not. in addition, you had elections upcoming at that point, and the assessment was the afghans were not in a position to secure the elections by themselves and that we did not have enough troops on the ground to really ensure their success.

the surge was put into place to try to put the forces in place that could reverse the momentum of the campaign of the taliban, give us the initiative, create breathing space to build the afghan national security forces so they could step into the lead, and really secure the country, and to allow space for elections and improved governance to occur. setting a date certain was part of an effort to assure the afghan leadership and afghan people that this was not going to be an indefinite occupation. we were not there to occupy the country, which has obviously been a very sore point for afghans. it was also to ensure we did not feed a growing culture of dependency on the u.s. and the international community.

we had this window, but then it we had this window, but then it would be up to them to take the lead on their own future. that was the rationale with the surge coupled with the date. host: a couple of calls waiting. we want to get to your reaction to the headlines on iran. iran says it will scale back its nuclear program beginning next week, january 20. what do you make of the progress of this negotiation? guest: i think the interim agreement is very important. it halts iran's activity. it is important. the good news is the international community will have been spent ears on the ground every day looking at their nuclear activities, and

the other thing that matters is the final agreement, making sure we put more time on the clock, that we ensure we have a situation where iran cannot dash to a weapon in a short timeframe. host: independent caller. caller: i want to put the movements in the middle east in a broader context. in the last three years, you had the arab spring and build states modeled after turkey and the region. the 22 arab nations were looking at this as a model to get a thriving economy. enemies of this movement, the southeast, israelis, are using this al qaeda threat to cause it

is a threat to them for these countries to liberate from these authoritarian regimes. it is a threat for them to develop and have economies and become manufacturing centers. so they are pushing their intelligence agencies and they are funding these if you missed groups, which are only branches of their intelligence services am a to d think this movement. -- services, to defame this movement. -- to have maladie give a little bit on -- how maladie a little bit on civil rights. and then to go in and basically defame this peaceful movement that has been happening for one alr and iraq, and the use qaeda as a label ready to stick on anybody asking for a sardine

-- for authoritarian regimes to be removed. i agree with your general sympathies for the arab spring movements that were seeking greater democratic rights and participation for the population in these countries. i disagree with your assessment of the al qaeda threat. i do think al qaeda in syria and now in iraqi is actually real, and actually many of the groups that the united states and the gulf states are funding in syria are more moderate, even if islamist, rebel groups that are actually fighting al qaeda in syria. and we just last week read a great deal about that, what was happening in the aleppo region. i disagree with your assessment, but i do think you raise an

important point about the prospects of the arab spring movements now in light of some very challenging circumstances now. carol from st. louis. caller: hi. is ii'm going to say, remember when this all started, the taliban and al qaeda were not the same thing. now we say the threat of the taliban in afghanistan. that is not the same thing as saying al qaeda. even though the taliban is more -ruled thing, they are still not al qaeda, and they -- had no problem when they were there. what is the problem question mark i do not understand when we say that the taliban is so bad.ible ma guest: the leader of the taliban

of al leader to whom most qaeda leadership has sworn fealty. safe haven was provided to al qaeda on their soil. there is an interconnection between these two groups, even though they are separate and distinct. the truth is you mentioned one of the primary sources of the taliban today, the poppy. they are fomenting and benefiting from the growth of poppies and the drug trade in afghanistan today. welcome. caller: i want to say going back this is not bush's war. this is america's war. we need to be more unified in that. guest: i agree.

caller: that is really all i have to say. guest: i agree with you, john. i think afghanistan in particular has been an effort that has enjoyed a lot of bipartisan support, and i would hope that would continue going for. to achievingose the core objective cavium ensuring that it does not slip back to being a safe house in -- safe haven for al qaeda. we can enable the afghans to ensure that reality. we just have to stay the course. fornroy,hele thank you for your time. >> nancy reagan was the first first lady to address the united nations. to my young friends out

there, life can be great, but not when you cannot see it. open your eyes to life. coversit in the vivid that god gave that, as a precious gift to his children, to enjoy life to the fullest, and to make it count. when it comes to drugs and alcohol, just say no. reagan, our series returns tonight at 9:00 eastern on c-span and c-span three, also on c-span radio and www.c- span.org. >> and the house is coming back minutes, six: 30 p.m. eastern time, for two votes and general speeches. later this week he will be working on long-term spending that will keep the federal government funded for the remainder of fiscal year 2014. fundingding -- current

runs out on wednesday. earlier today the state department responded to new reports that the you and inspectors are expressing misgivings about the amount of access they will have two iranian nuclear sites. under the agreement implemented on january 20, the program will come to a stop at the first time in almost a decade. take a look at us before we go back to the house floor. iaei, it was a busy weekend. thatsaid today, told us increased access to monitor the plan and that that is short of what they need to investigate a lot of this stuff properly. what kind of access would you like to see, and also, if they do not have the access to do say properly um how do you off those in congress who are are green for -- >> a couple points.

i have not seen the comments. in terms of eric indication that in terms of verification mechanism, on january 20, when the plan is implemented, we will have the most access we have ever had to these sites. monthlyector access, access, much more frequent than in the past. the ieee eight is taking the lead on confirming what the iranians are doing under the joint plan of action, and it is significant to note for the first time in almost a decade, next week the iranian program will come to halt. in terms of the congressional access of it, i think the fact that we have taken a concrete, tangible step by implementing this agreement. come all about access the things that iran will be doing in terms of stopping 20% enrichment. all of the things they have committed to do will start

happening on the 20th, i think we would make the case to congress that for all of the people that have talked about diplomacy and diplomatic solutions here, we are making tangible progress. we have a long way to go, and no one should do everything -- anything that could derail that process. this is the best chance we've had for diplomatic resolution the iranian nuclear program, and who knows when we get this chance again. we would tell congress they should not take any steps that could derail that process for any reason because it is a very delicate the poetic situation, -- delicate diplomatic situation. >> how much access do you think needs to have to be able to do their job? we have known the limits that iran has put on the team before. is there some kind of yardstick

you can tell how much access they should have? >> i have not seen that. we agreed the joint plan of action, leaving the increased transparency we got into her run ran's nuclear program was a good step forward. monthly access, design plans, things we never had before, insight we never had before. clearly this is not enough. the first of is not enough on any of these areas. that is why we need to negotiate an agreement. we will have double transparency and visibility into their nuclear program. going back to the congressional peace, why would anyone want to do anything, especially something that does not go into effect at the current time, that could possibly close the doors on a daily basis to these sites? why would you do something that could possibly result in inspectors not being allowed in

on a daily basis that would derail the negotiations? it defies logic that if you support diplomacy you should not do things to actively undermine it. that is the argument we are making to congress. >> is it your understanding that inspectors will have monthly access, but not dismantling the facilities because the iranians have invested in these for almost a decade. the facilities will be intact, but they will have a closer look? >> the first point is in the first step, they cannot -- the program is halted and they cannot use -- and there's a whole list of things they cannot do under the joint plan of action to move toward a plutonium track to get a record. we have said in a conference of agreement there will likely to have to be some dismantling of some things. that is what is supposed to be negotiated over the next six in the conference of agreement. what we have done as a first

that is the progress of the program so they cannot make our gress, they cannot make steps to bring it online, and we will have increased moderate gain -- monitoring. the goal is to prevent iran from making a weapon, so we will have conservations about those details. hear you yesterday, but you cannot hear me. >> i know. i tried to call on you. was that your question? >> yeah. >> i'm glad you got to ask you. >> the statement is iran forgoing any kind of richmond level that would allow them to have a nuclear weapon, is that not correct? >> correct them away? >> he basically said iran would not have any kind of enrichment level above the 5% that would allow for -- to have a weapon

eyes program. >> in the joint plan we have laid out specifically what they can and cannot do, and we have always said if the iranians, when they say they only want a peaceful nuclear program a month that they can prove it. that is part of what the process is about. it is a step in the right direction for my credible, concrete, tangible step. done enough, because of the history. that is why it is important on january 20 iran take concrete and tangible action that could eventually through to difficult diplomacy lead to a comprehensive agreement. >> in lebanon, there is a meeting and they are going to go on. do you see that as a positive engagement by iran? >> given clear that the nuclear issue is a separate one from iran's role it is playing in the

region. also in places like syria and lebanon, when appropriate, without speaking to his visit, of course, they -- iran has played eight the stabilizing role in a number of these countries. i do not have comments on the worn minister's visit. our folks.ck on obviously he has been part of the nuclear negotiation. besides that, i did not have anything on his visit. anything else on iran? saidd iranian official they will continue to enrich 20% all -- all the way to the generate 20 deadline. is that in the spirit of the negotiations in the temporary deal? >> the first agreement goes into effect on january 20. ea will20th, the ia report on the status of iran's nuclear program, including reactors.

regardless of what they do between now and then, on the 20th they will halt action of 20% enriched uranium. dilute halfart to of the 20% enriched uranium and continue to convert the rest for further enrichment. by the end of six months they will have completed a dilution of 20% uranium or a conversion to oxide. regattas and what they do, by the end of six months, and they have fulfilled their commitment, they will have completed that dilution and conversion of their stock pile of 20% enriched uranium. >> this is akin to been streaking and going on a diet or going on the wagon? >> i do not, and i will not use that term. when this goes into effect on generate 20, that is when they will have the obligation to fulfill their commitment, and we

are clear eyed about the difficulty of these negotiations, but they have committed on their own to do these aims. their them to stand by word and fulfill the commitment. that speaks clearly to the 20% enriched uranium stockpiles. there are very specific details about what they have to do during the six months. >> why would they continue to enrich all the way to the deadline? >> i will not guess to their motivations. yes. the house back in now. s will be taken in the following order. h.r. 1513 by the yeas and nays. s. 230 by the yeas and nays. the first electronic vote will be conducted as a 15-minute vote. the remaining electronic vote will be cubblingted as a five-minute vote -- will be conducted as a five-minute vote. oops. the unfinished business is the vote on the motion of the gentleman from washington, mr. hastings, to suspend the rules and pass h.r. 1513 on which the yeas and nays are ordered.

the clerk will report the title of the bill. the clerk: union calendar number 162. h.r. 1513, a bill to revise the boundaries of the gettysburg national military park to include the gettysburg train station and certain land along plum run in cumberland township, to limit the means by which property within such revised boundaries may be acquired and for other purposes. the speaker pro tempore: the question is, will the house suspend the rules and pass the bill. members will record their votes by electronic device. this is a 15-minute vote. [captioning made possible by the national captioning institute, inc., in cooperation with the united states house of representatives. any use of the closed-captioned coverage of the house proceedings for political or commercial purposes is expressly prohibited by the u.s. house of representatives.]

the speaker pro tempore: on this vote, the yeas are 396, the nays

are zero. 2/3 being in the affirmative, the rules are suspended, the bill is passed and without objection the motion to reconsider is laid on the table. the unfinished business is the vote on the motion of the gentleman from washington, mr. hastings, suspend the rules and pass s. 230 on which the yeas and nays are ordered. the clerk will report the title of the bill. the clerk: s. 230, a bill to establish a commemorative work in the district of columbia and its environs and for other purposes. the speaker pro tempore: the question is, will the house suspend the rules and pass the bill? members will record their votes by electronic device. this is a five-minute vote. [captioning made possible by the national captioning institute, inc., in cooperation with the united states house of representatives. any use of the closed-captioned coverage of the house proceedings for political or commercial purposes is expressly prohibited by the u.s. house of representatives.]

the speaker pro tempore: on this vote the yeas are 387, the nays are seven. 2/3 of those voting having responded in the affirmative, the rules are suspended, the bill is passed and, without objection, the motion to reconsider is laid on the table.

the speaker pro tempore: the house will be in order.

members will clear the well. the speaker pro tempore: the chair will now recognize requests for one-minute speeches. for what purpose does the

gentleman from california rise? without objection, the gentleman is recognized for one minute. the shouse not in order -- the house is not in order. he house will be in order. >> thank you, mr. speaker. mr. speaker, i rise today to celebrate the tremendous achievements that korean americans have made since the first koreans arrived here in california, in the united states, on this day, on january 13, back in 1903. and in recognizing this special anniversary, we honor the rich cull cultural history, the -- cultural history, the wonderful contributions -- >> mr. speaker, the house is not in order. the speaker pro tempore: the house will be in order. mr. royce: that those wonderful contributions that korean americans have made to the arts, to science, to commerce.

korean americans are leaders in business and government and in the community here. they serve brafle in our nation's armed -- bravely in our nation's armed services and have made the ultimate sacrifice in defense of our nation. as chairman of the foreign afears committee, i also see -- affairs committee, i also see the positive impact of korean americans on the u.s. republic of korea relationship -- u.s.-republic of korea relationship. last year i was honored to welcome president park when she visited the u.s. and made a special stop in southern california to meet with korean american leaders. and next month i will lead a bipartisan delegation to seoul to meet with president park, to reinforce america's friendsship with south korea. -- friendship with south korea. having chaired the parliamentary exchange, i know well the role that those members of the national assembly and of our house of representatives played in establishing the u.s.-korea free trade agreement. so, in the months ahead,

congress will continue its work on issues that deepen the relationship. the special relationship with the u.s. and south korea. mr. speaker, i yield back. the speaker pro tempore: the house will be in order. will members please take their conversations off the floor. for what purpose does the gentlewoman from california seek recognition? the gentlewoman is recognized for one minute. >> mr. speaker, i rise today to join my colleagues in marking the 50th anniversary of the war on poverty. when i was 20 years old, i went to work for the greater los angeles community action a agency which was the administrative agency for the war on poverty in los angeles. this experience helped shape my commitment for public service. the war on poverty has had a real lasting and positive legacy, but there is still much more that needs to be done. ms. bass: according to the u.s. census, roughly one in three

americans lived in poverty for at least two months from 2009 to 2011. one in three. congress needs to make sure that we are doing all we can to help americans by creating jobs and addressing the structural causes of poverty. without a doubt, the war on poverty was more than a speech. it was a commitment backed up by public policy and resources to help americans escape the tyranny of poverty. on this golden anniversary, let us return to this commitment in our laws, our programs and our communities. i yield back the balance of my time. the speaker pro tempore: for what purpose does the gentleman from pennsylvania seek recognition? >> i ask unanimous consent to address the house for one minute, to revise and extend my remarks. the speaker pro tempore: without objection, the gentleman is recognized for one minute. >> thank you, mr. speaker. friday's jobs report was discouraging. 347,000 people stopped looking for work. one commentator said people simply gave up. this has been the worst

recovery since the great depression. the president's policies, massive spending, a destructive health care law, a promise to bankrupt the coal industry, and a refusal to build keystone x.l. pipeline have not produced jobs. they have, however, helped wall street and washington elites. mr. rothfus: this is not fair. one of my bosses in pennsylvania 12, laurie, emailed about her husband who lost his job as a result of the war on coal. he took care of his family with that job. she writes, many other industries besides the mining is affected. it hits down to the truck driver, the blasting companies, and even down to our restaurants and retail stores. to help families like laurie's, this house has passed dozens of bills to promote job growth. unfortunately the senate has failed to act. this must change so that more people do not simply give up. i thank the speaker and yield back. the speaker pro tempore: the gentleman's time has expired.

for what purpose does the gentleman from nevada seek recognition? without objection, the gentleman is recognized for one minute. mr. horsford: thank you, mr. speaker. i come to the floor today to remember assemblyman bernie anderson of sparks, nevada, who passed away last friday. bernie was a true public servant, not just as a lawmaker, but as an educator as well. for 32 years he was a dedicated teacher and recognized with the teacher of the month award by the reno sparks chamber of commerce in october, 1985. as chair of the assembly judiciary committee, he was a staunch advocate for children and drug treatment policies that provided people the help they needed. when asked how he became successful at his job, he answered, i try to listen rather than talk. i like people, i care about what people are thinking and how they see solutions to the

problems. we desperately need more people like bernie anderson in this world. he will be missed by many. my thoughts and prayers remain with his family. i yield back my time. the speaker pro tempore: the gentleman yields. for what purpose does the gentlewoman from florida seek recognition? ms. ros-lehtinen: i ask unanimous consent to address the house for one minute, revise and extend my remarks. the speaker pro tempore: without objection, the gentlewoman is recognized for one minute. ms. ros-lehtinen: thank you, mr. speaker. because unesco admitted the nonexistent state of palestine to its membership, we were obligated under u.s. law to cut off funding for that anti-american, anti-israel organization. yet some in congress are trying to change these laws in the upcoming omnibus spending bill, without giving members of congress the opportunity to have an open and earnest debate on the merits of having our constituents fund unesco. there is no incentive for the house to go against our principles, to go against u.s. law, and i will remain an

absolute -- i will remain in absolute opposite to any proposition that offers the administration a waiver on this or offers a plan to fund, partially or fully, any part of unesco. unesco knew what it was doing palestine into its club, but unesco counted on the swishy obama administration to fund the agency anyway. well, congress should say no to unesco. we should say to unesco, no, you are not worthy of the hard-earned taxpayer dollars of our constituents and enough is enough, mr. speaker. the speaker pro tempore: the gentlewoman's time has expired. for what purpose does the gentlewoman from new york seek recognition? without objection, the gentlewoman is recognized for minute.

ms. clarke: thank you, mr. speaker. as proud member of the brooklyn alumny chapter, it is my deepest honor to extend warm wishes to my sorority on our 1 01st founders day. on january 13, 1913, 22 young women at howard university in washington, d.c., the women of soon showed heta their dedication to our society. the women worked to support academic excellence at their colleges and universities and to provide assistance to women in need. in 1950, its first overseas chapter was established in haiti. the sorority currently has more than 900 chapters, located in the united states, england, japan, germany, the virgin islands, bermuda, the bahamas, the republic of korea. many prominent corporate, public and community leaders are part of the sorority, including the chair of the congressional black caucus, the honorable marcia fudge, and the honorable congresswoman joyce

beatty of columbus, ohio. my predecessor in congress, the honorable cheryly chisholm, was also a member of the sorority. her work as an activist and elected official provides an example of the capacity of leadership that the sorority has developed in generation after generation of young college-educated women. to the women of the sorority, happy founders day. and i yield back the balance of my time. the speaker pro tempore: the gentlewoman yields back the balance of her time. for what purpose does for what purpose does the gentleman from texas seek recognition? . >> mr. speaker, i ask unanimous consent to address the house for one min and revise and extend my remarks. the speaker pro tempore: without objection, the gentleman is recognized for one minute. mr. poe: mr. speaker, as the sun rises each morning in africa, angelina gathers water for her family but the water well is broken most every day so she and

other women like her are forced to go 10 miles to fetch watter from a polluted river, water that's infected with waste, parasites and other insents. going to the smelly river is physically hard but it's also emotionally hard because angelina's 2-year-old daughter died from the bug-infested water. but angelina goes to the river because she has no other option. every 21 seconds a child dies from water related diseases. by the time i finish talking, three children will die. this ought not to be. representative blumenauer and i introduced a water for the world act, that will make u.s. water aid more efficient and more coordinated. we have it in our power to fix this tragedy so mothers in africa don't lose their daughters to polluted drinking water, and that's just the way it is. i yield back. the speaker pro tempore: for

what purpose does the gentleman from georgia seek recognition? >> i ask unanimous consent to address the house for one minute and revise and extend my remarks. the speaker pro tempore: without objection, the gentleman is recognized for one minute. mr. johnson: i rise to remind us 's been four years since a devastating earthquake hit haiti, killing thousands and displacing millions of haitians. today, according to the international center for migration, 300,000 people remain in impoverished conditions. squalid tent cities litter the countryside as the nation deals with an ongoing food crisis and fights a cholera outbreak. as we reflect on this ongoing tragedy and emphasize with the continuing and -- and empathize with the continued suffering of

the people of haiti, let's reinvigorate our resolute commitment to haiti's full recovery and its future development. i yield back. the speaker pro tempore: the gentleman yields back. for what purpose does the gentleman from pennsylvania seek recognition? >> mr. speaker, i ask unanimous consent to address the house for one minute and revise and extend my remarks. the speaker pro tempore: without objection, the gentleman is recognized for one minute. mr. thompson: under the federal ndate, employers with -- rganizations with more than 50 could have to buy insurance. we have pushed for reform of this. we have introduced legislation that will ensure volunteers are not counted as full-time employees under the a.c.a. as a result of these efforts, on

friday, january 10, the i.r.s. will anounsed they won't be considering volunteer firefighters as employees for purposes of the law. while that is a step in the right direction, that doesn't make it final. the devil tends to be in the details. this cloud of uncertainty must be removed. with that said, i look forward to reviewing the final ruling and will work to ensure there's certainty provided in a timely fashion. i yield back. the speaker pro tempore: the gentleman yields back. for what purpose does the gentlewoman from texas seek recognition? >> i ask unanimous consent to address the house for one minute. the speaker pro tempore: without objection, the gentlewoman is recognized for one minute. ms. jackson lee: to my haitian constituents, those of haitian descent in houston, texas, and those around the nation, i want you toe know -- to know we have not forgotten you. i rise in memory of the victims of the haitian earthquake that took so many hundreds of

thousands of haitian citizens in a terrible, massive disaster. nearly four years after haiti's devastating earthquake, there's still too little transparency and accountability, too much work to do and too many haitians suffering. as haitian americans are caught up in our broken immigration system, it's important for them to know that we have not forgotten their loved ones. there are close to 300,000 people still living in tent camps, many of whom are facing forced eviction. though there was a great deefl sympathy and help, now is the time to look to those who are still suffering. kohl la sshas killed over 8,400 haitians and sicken over 849,000. thousands have to no access to clean water and basing health services. an the children are suffering, according to international organizations. that's why i supported h.r. 3509, the assessing pogress in haiti act of 013.

this legislation will give congress information and according to the deal, congress lacks information on the funds disbursed. we must do something. they're our friends and neighbors, they're our allies. as i conclude let me thank the congressional black caucus for the work it has done. without ceasing, we will continue to work together. i yield back. the speaker pro tempore: the gentlewoman's time has expired. for what purpose does the gentlewoman from florida seek recognition? >> i ask for one minute to address the house. the speaker pro tempore: without objection, the gentlewoman is recognized for one minute. >> mr. speaker, on the fourth anniversary of the worst natural disaster in recent history, the earthquake in haiti of 2010, i rise to honor those affected and salute the strength and resilience of the haitian people. mrs. wilson: the earthquake in january, 2010, claimed hundreds

of thousands of lives an destroyed the livelihoods of nearly three million more people. take a moment to contemplate the enormity of this calamity. more than three quarter of the schools in the capital were rendered useless, leaving young haste haitians with little opportunity to learn and -- leaving young haitians with little opportunity to learn and no place to spend their time. people were he killed. thanks to the resolve and hard work of the haitian people as well as effective assistance from the obama administration and our international partners, haiti has started on the process of recovery. the fourth anniversary of haiti's tragedy provides an opportunity to honor those who lost their lives. and recognize the progress that's been acheed. it is also a time to reaffirm our commitment to help haiti

rebound by insisting on on accountability and transparency. i yield back the balance of my time. the speaker pro tempore: the gentlewoman's time has expired. for what purpose does the gentleman from new york seek recognition? without objection, the gentleman is recognized for one minute. >> thank you, mr. speaker. with all the recent reporting on snow and rain events, it's hard to imagine that water scarcity is one of the greatest threats from climate change, but it is. mr. tonko: it imposes costs and suffering on 1.3 billion people around the world. a study from the national academy of sciences combined agriculture and water models to how climate change is affecting water. it is irrigation water that will be reduced significantly,

converting between 48 and 148 million acres from irgated to rain-fed land. there are substitutes for many materials we use but not water. we must protect water resources and use them with care and part of that effort must be to address climate change by limiting the emissions that are sletening our future and that of our children. food supplies and economic and social progress require adequate clean water supplies. we should act now before more people are forced to endure water shortages. with that, i yield back the balance of my time. the speaker pro tempore: the gentleman's time has expired. for what purpose does the gentleman from texas seek recognition? >> i ask unanimous consent to address the house for one minute and revise and extend my remarks. the speaker pro tempore: without objection, the gentleman is recognized for one minute. >> mr. speaker, i rise today to honor the fort worth, dallas, and arlington chapters of delta sigma theta on their founder's

day for 101 years of service to our community. founded in 1913 by 22 women on the campus of howard university, it's an organization committed to scholarship, sisterhood and service. mr. veasey: they're committed to service and provide support through programs like delta gyms, which the fort worth chapter hosts to help young girls. in dallas, deltas provide free hair styling for senior citizens. i applaud the dallas-fort worth chapters and the thousands of deltas nationwide for their service to our country, state, and world and wish them many more. i yield back. the speaker pro tempore: the gentleman yields back. the chair lays before the house the following personal requests.

the clerk: leave of absence requested for mr. culberson of texas for today, mr. roybal-allard of california for today. -- ms. roybal-allard of california for today. the speaker pro tempore: without objection, the requests are granted. under the speaker's announced policy, the gentleman from nevada, mr. horsford is recognized for 60 minutes as the designee of the minority leader. mr. horsford: thank you and good evening, mr. speaker. i appreciate this designated hour at the beginning of this week for the congressional black caucus as it normally does to come to this floor to bring forward issues that are very important to the american people and tonight, i join with my colleagues to speak about the importance of extending unemployment insurance benefits, growing our economy, and putting

people back to work. and so for the next hour, the congressional black caucus will talk about the dire need for emergency unemployment insurance benefits and the fact that it's time for congress to do its job. i'd like to thank my co-anchor, mr. jeffries from new york, and our chair, the honorable marcia fudge from ohio, for their leadership in working tonight to bring forward these important issues. at this time i'd like to recognize the gentlelady from new york, representative clarke. ms. clarke: thank you, mr. speaker. to the gentleman from las vegas, mr. horsford, i thank you for your leadership and guidance during this c.b.c.

-- c.b.c. special order. today i rise to support the extension of emergency unemployment benefits. since 2008, both parties have come together to provide extra weeks of unemployment benefits for our fellow americans. these people, these americans, are our neighbors, our relatives, our friends, and constituents. who are unemployed through no fault of their own. they have consistently tried to find employment, having pounded the pavement each and every day, but unfortunately, to no avail. they deserve our help. unemployment benefits help americans pay for their most basic survival needs, food, housing, and medical care. if unemployment benefits are not extended, approximately five million americans are expected to lose emergency unemployment benefits over the next 12 months and of that number, 383,000 are

new yorkers. failing to extend the emergency benefits will reduce economic growth by .4%. andhe first quarter of 2014 cost our economy 310,000 jobs next year. is this really another problem we want to have our nation face? it is important to realize that unemployment not only negatively affects individuals and their families but also our economy. in particular, small business owners. the mom and pop shops that are the pillars in our communities suffer more when their customers cannot patronize their businesses. mark zandy, chief economist at moody's analytics has found that for every $1 spent on grows yment insurance, the economy $1.55.

these dollars serklating through the economy create jobs. despite statements to the contrary, no one wants to be unemployed. americans want to work. it's part of the american ethos. it's also part of the american ethos to help our fellow citizens out when they are down. we all must remember that, but for the grace of god go i. i close by asking speaker boehner to bring an emergency unemployment benefit extension benefit to the floor and in doing so not only help our economy but more importantly, millions of deserving and unemployed americans. mr. speaker, i yield back to the gentleman from las vegas. . mr. horsford: thank you. and i'd like to thank the gentlelady from new york. thank you for your hard work

and for bringing your perspective to the need for extending the unemployment insurance benefits to the 1.3 million americans who, as of this week, have now lost receiving that benefit. this is the week that they would have otherwise received that unemployment insurance benefit in the mail. so this is real for some 1.3 million americans who are struggling this week to meet their obligations, to keep the lights on, to put food on the table, to pay the rent. this is the week and each week that congress fails to act, 72,000 americans, additional americans, lose their unemployment insurance benefits . one person every eight seconds, mr. speaker, loses their uninsurance benefits when congress fails to act. and that's why the congressional black caucus is here this evening, to bring attention to the urgency of now

. every week 72,000 americans areling, additional americans, on -- are struggling, additional americans, on top of the 1.3 million, as of december 28, have lost their unemployment insurance. so this is real. and the impacts are real. so i would like to go to the vice chairman now of the congressional black caucus, the gentleman from north carolina. he provided tremendous leadership to our caucus and to the issues important to the american people, the gentleman from north carolina, mr. butterfield. mr. butterfield: let me thank you, mr. horsford, for yielding time to me this evening. let me also thank you for your passion and your tireless work. not only on behalf of the congressional black caucus, but on behalf of the people of clark county, nevada, and all of the other people that you represent in your great state. thank you very much for your tireless energy. i've watched you from the first day that you've come to this house floor and you are no

doubt one of the hardest working members of this house ainled thank you so very much -- and i thank you so very much. but, mr. speaker, i come to the floor today to urge my republican colleagues to pass an extension of the emergency unemployment compensation program and to do it now. this program is a crucial safety net for those who are most in need. my colleagues know that i represent north carolina, but what many of you may not know is that my state, the state of north carolina, already lost its federal unemployment insurance last year. republican governor turned away $780 million in federal funding to assist the long-term unemployed. now, on december 28, a few days ago, 1.3 million americans joined tens of thousands of my constituents in losing out on the support that they deserve. this program, mr. speaker, is a response to the greatest

recession since the great depression. in the last five years, president obama has led our nation back from the brink of economic collapse. but there is still work to be done. now is not the time to abandon this program. 1.3 million americans have been searching for work for more than 26 weeks, often after being laid off from jobs that they have worked for years. the need for emergency unemployment insurance is especially high in communities like those that i represent in north carolina. double-digit unemployment, still persists in many counties -- in many counties that i represent. in my congressional district, one in four people, including 36% of our children, live below the poverty level. families in transition depend on emergency unemployment insurance to put basic food on the table, to care for their children and search for new

employment. last year north carolina governor dealt a devastating blow to the long-term unemployed by reducing state unemployment benefits. that reduction caused the federal emergency unemployment compensation program to literally dissolve in our state. the governor made this decision knowing its harmful impacts and that it would make north carolina the only state in the country to end emergency jobless benefits for its citizens. the governor's decision is a disgrace. that decision forfeited, forfeited $780 million in urgently needed federal benefits for long-term unemployed north carolinians and cost our state 1.-- $1.5 billion in economic activity. the elimination of the e.u.c. program nationwide now will cost an additional $200 -- 200,000 jobs due to reduced

economic activity. this is according to the congressional budget olves. at the beginning of this year -- office. at the beginning of this year, americans from 49 other states lost out on their emergency unemployment benefits just like my state did last year. now a million families will struggle to pay their bills and provide for their families during their search for employment. north carolinians have already seen firsthand how devastating these cuts can be. my constituents are outraged, they're outraged with the governor and republicans and the north carolina general assembly who chose to abandon this program. we must extend this program to give families a chance to get back on their feet. democratic proposals to extend the program would give my constituents a chance, a fair chance to receive federal unemployment benefits held hostage by our governor. two times in the last two months house republicans on

this floor have nearly unanimously defeated democratic motions to hold votes on extending this program. therefore we must stand up against those like governor -- the govern who are seek to disenfranchise hardworking people who are down on their luck by extending emergency unemployment insurance and other critical programs, a program by which they have paid into as insurance payments for many, many years. we cannot, mr. speaker, we must not afford to turn a blind eye and to leave those behind who are most in need. i want to thank you, mr. horsford, for bringing this issue to the attention of the american people. i hope my colleagues are listening tonight because this is a sense of urgency. thank you, i yield back. mr. horsford: i thank the gentleman from north carolina and i thank him for his profound remarks this evening and the call to action not only

for the leadership in north carolina, but for the leadership in this house to do its job in bringing legislation forward, to allow us to vote to extend unemployment insurance benefits for the people of north carolina and across america who this week, now because of the failure of congress to act, when they went to their mail box to receive their unemployment insurance benefit, this is the week that they opened that mailbox and nothing was there to provide that bridge. and so this is real. and people are impacted and this has been an insurance program that has received bipartisan support in the past and there is no reason why this congress cannot do its job to get this done now. i thank the gentleman from north carolina for his leadership and i'd like to now turn to the gentlelady from texas who has brought forward and who has raised the objections prior to us even adjourning in december, along

with 170 of our other colleagues, calling on the leadership to not go on recess, but in fact to stay here and do its job. we are where we are now, but we have raised these objections and the gentlelady from texas has raised these objections. i'd like to yield time now to the gentlelady from texas, ms. sheila jackson lee. ms. jackson lee: let me thank the gentleman from nevada, mr. horsford, and mr. jeffries, both, for, again, convening the members of the congressional black caucus. under your leadership and the leadership of our chairwoman, the honorable marcia fudge, and to be joining here on the floor at least to date with our colleague from new york, our colleague from north carolina, our colleague from new jersey, which is clearly showing the vast depth of this particular crisis, going from south to north and to far west and the state of texas. let me say to those who are presently unemployed, the

72,000 a week that occurs as we stand on the floor of the house, that you can count on the members on this floor, the democratic members, the congressional black caucus, and our good friends on the other side of the aisle to recognize that this is not a partisan issue, but an american issue. just a few weeks ago or just last week in fact, i had in the houston chronicle d an on ed that said the number one job for the house is to extend emergency unemployment aid. the program will help the economy by creating jobs and boosting growth. and i think it is important to emphasize and refute some of the negative stigma that comes from those who misunderstand what the unemployment benefit or unemployment insurance, let's use that word, it means that individuals have actually worked, they are working people, they put into the idea

of having an unemployment benefit and the united states federal government determined in times of bad economic times to continue the 47 weeks through an emergency relief. and by the way, it was supported by president george bush in 2008, when he offered to say that these individuals have worked previously, they're looking for work, and they deserve to be able to support their families. individuals like annettea parker who has been looking for work for two years, is holding up the very letter that she held up at my press conference in houston to acknowledge that this is a letter that mean people are getting in their -- that many people are getting in their mailboxes. not only are they getting these letters but they're not getting any indication for relief. call united way, call social services, and i can tell you, people who have worked don't have a tendency to know the local social services and they are desperate. they get a letter that they're being cut off. and in the midst of this, i met

individuals who are looking for work, who said, i am now homeless. because those dollars were allowing know pay week by week, a place to live, a place to clean myself, if you will, to make myself presentble, to look for work, which is a requirement of the emergency unemployment insurance benefits and they are now on the street. not only are they on the streets, mr. horsford, but when i went home on friday and sat down again at the korea recovery and resources -- career recovery and resources, to talk with more individuals, many of these persons are veterans, because veterans are taught to suck it up and they have not even in some instances attempted to get these benefits to those who would say that everybody just wants to be on the dough. so ronde the unemployment benefits of 1.3 million, there are many others that we have not approached. so it is important that this special order is done to reach to the other side of the aisle,

the speaker, to put on the floor of the house an emergency three-month extension of unemployment benefits. to not cast aside individuals who have been looking for work and to not ignore the fact that over this cold december we lost 16,000 jobs in construction, we lost some 11,000 jobs in the movie industry, we lost jobs in the sports industry, and we are continuing to lose jobs because this month was a cold month and so the production of jobs was 78,000, even though this economy is rebounding and we've had some other good months. this month, the december month, it was 78,000. don't you think that those individuals who are looking for work were rebuffed by the fact or were blocked by the fact that there were jobs that were lost? so, i'd like to encourage my friends in the other body to quickly find a way of coming together. as my colleagues note, they postponed the votes today.

and i believe that some of the suggestions being made about pension relief for military persons may be a basis for finding compromise. but i think when we pit the idea of fiscal responsibility and deficits against individuals having a roof over their head and children having food on the table, it is disgraceful. an it is equally disgraceful when people misinterpret the idea of what unemployment benefits are all about. and as i wrote this op ed, it saddened me, though i believe in the first amendment, when letters came in response to the op ed and they wanted to ask the question, why don't these people get a job? why don't we have a jobs program? that didn't disappoint me. i think that's a good question. but they didn't seem to understand that it was people looking for work who could not find work. it was long lines of people who could not find work.

they want to work. and so i would say to them that this is not a handout by but a helping hand -- handout but a helping hand. and i expect to introduce soon a training bill that allows individuals who are on unemployment benefits to get a stipend, to be able to utilize for labor department designated disciplines of work, to train for work that needs additional workers. it is actually to have it is not a stipend to go out to some neighborhood training thing somebody set up, it's for actual treaning programs to get jobs. but just to say, let's pass bills like the keystone bill and that's the cause of no jobs, is

not accurate. i think we can support the jobs bill of the president and create jobs. i want to thank the gentleman for allowing us to come and be able to highlight that in the cold of the winter, there are people in line trying to get work and that there were people online trying to get work, online trying to get work in november and october and september and august and july. because this young lady, ms. parker, has been looking for work for two years. a very competent administrative assistant, along with many others. veterans have been looking for work. i would like to say to those i met with on friday, we will not forget you and we recognize that you are deserving of human dignity. that you want to work. that you have worked. that you're not looking for a handout. that the unemployment insurance is not a handout. it is an emergency relief for those who have worked.

and let us have compassion. let us have sympathy. let us care about others. and let us work together to extend this uninsurance to -- this uninsurance benefit to provide for the family of america. i thank the gentleman and yield back. mr. horsford: i thank the gentlelady from texas, i appreciate you very much bringing to attention who is covered by unemployment insurance and putting a face to who is receiving this insurance. i'm glad you focused on that term, insurance, and the fact that these are individuals who have paid in to the program as they have been gainfully employed for some time. and due to no fault of their own, now, they are in need of this bridge, many of whom, people who are in training and that initiative of legislation that you're proposing to link job seekers to employer-based demands is exactly the type of reform that our side supports.

and that we're willing to work with the other side on. but we need to provide the extension of the unemployment benefits why we work on those reforms. right now the congress has failed to provide this bridge and you have documented that very well in your remarks this evening. i thank the gentlelady. let me highlight as well some of the additional information on who is covered by unemployment insurance benefits. this is according to to the department of labor. four of five beneficiaries of unemployment insurance benefits, mr. speaker, are individuals with children in the household or another adult in the household, typically a spouse. 44.5% of individuals who receive

emergency unemployment benefits are households with children. so just think about that for a moment. this is the week that those emergency unemployment benefits didn't come in, the $300 or $400 or $500 they may have received to help meet their basic needs this month that impacted not only that job seeker, not only that unemployed worker, but also their children. half of the people receiving emergency unemployment insurance have at least some college education. so for those who continue to use this rhetoric of these are people who are lazy, who are sitting at home, channel surfing, they don't want to look for work, half of them are people already with college education or some form of education. 36.4% have high school degrees. d then finally, mr. speaker,

50%, over nine in 10, live in households with total income less than $75,000 a year. this is the working poor of our country. these are the people who are striving to be part of the middle class. and if anything, they are using emergency unemployment benefits as a bridge until they can get back on their feet. i also want to point out, though, mr. speaker, that 43% are individuals with income between -- over $75,000 a year. so this economy has hit virtually every strata of income level. so that is why it is important for this congress to do its job in extending unemployment insurance benefits. i want to commend the other chamber, the leadership, the majority leader harry reid from my home state of nevada and republican u.s. senator dean

heller also from nevada, in large part, our state, because we have unemployment at about 9%, tied with rhode island for the highest unemployment in the country, not because job seekers don't want to go to work, mr. speaker. but because the second highest industry in our state was construction and because of the bust of the construction economy in our state, there are no jobs. or there are very few jobs for those trades workers. for engineering firms. for architecture firms. i have one architecture firm that had to lay off 0% of their work force in the last few years because there simply aren't the jobs in the construction sector, despite the fact that our my is beginning to rebound, it's not rebounding in all sectors or in all regions of our country. and that's why it's critically

important that this congress do its job to extend unemployment insurance benefits for the 20,000 nevadans who have lost them and the 1.3 million americans who also lost them. i'd now like to turn to my good friend and my freshman colleague, it's been a great opportunity over the last year to get to know him and the work that he does in the great state of new jersey and the commitment that he brings to serving the people of his congressional district. i'd like to recognize the gentleman from new jersey, mr. payne. mr. payne: thank you, mr. speaker. and before i start, let me thank the gentleman from nevada, mr. horsford, for his leadership through the first session of the 113th congress and into the second session of the 113th congress. i am honored to be one of the

freshmen, actually, the ranking freshman in the c.b.c., if i can take that liberty, but the gentleman from nevada and the gentleman from new york have distinguished theirselves in the leadership of the congressional black caucus in the first 1egs -- in the first session of the 113th congress and i'm honored to serve with them. mr. speaker, i rise today for the 90,000 new jerseyans who lost their unemployment insurance on december 28, and the 89,000 more new jerseyans set to lose unemployment benefits in the first half of the new year. the people back in my district can't understand how out of touch some of my republican colleagues are and have become -- and have come to think that cutting off this assistance will force the unemployed to get a

job. well, i have news for my colleagues. these people are not lazy. quite the opposite. these people are out every single day searching desperately for work. but the fact of the matter is, there just aren't enough jobs for the amount of people unemployed. a s up to congress to pass jobs bill to put these people back to work. but this congress has not done that. and until that time comes, we have a moral obligation to help our fellow americans and -- help our fellow americans out and give them the economic security they need to put food on the table, to keep a roof over their heads, and to pay their bills so that they have the ability to continue to look for a job. mr. speaker, it is called insurance for a reason. these people have paid into this

fund and they must be actively searching for work to receive this critical lifeline. they might have paid into this system for five, 10, and even 20 years to receive this assistance. and now we talk about cutting them off. they are filled with anxiety as they compete against hundreds of others for a job. i know, i've heard their stories from my district. a young man by the name of adam, an arts teacher from montclair, new jersey, who holds a master's degree from columbia, recently lost his job through no fault of his own because of funding cuts in education. and despite his best efforts, he, like so many others, has been unable to find work. wever passing day, anxiety for the well being of adam's family

grows. and through no fault of his own, he finds himself in this predicament. another young man from my district, jeffrey, from bloomfield, new jersey, is now gainfully employed but was fortunate enough to have unemployment when he lost his job. when he hit hard times during the recession, jeffrey was thankful that he had at least some money coming in to make ends meet. in his letter to me, jeffrey wrote, i'm concerned for my friends and neighbors who might not have been so lucky, who will be devastated by the sudden loss of income. the ability to pay for a roof over one's head and basic living expenses may seem a small measure of dig nity but it means the world to someone who has lost their job that they've devoted years of their life

into. so i urge my republican colleagues and the leadership to listen to people like adam and jeff re. to understand this is not about people who are lazy, who are sitting around, who are just cityg time and taking in a pend that they haven't paid into or deserve. these are americans, your friends, your neighbors, people we all know, relatives, that find themselves in this situation. and we must do something for them. we must continue to make sure that they can meet their needs on a minimal basis to keep them afloat until they can find a job. so i urge the republican house leadership to listen to people

like them. mr. speaker, we need to put a bill on the floor that extends unemployment insurance right away. otherwise, each and every week, my republican colleagues delay -- each and every week my republican colleague kess lay, more than 3,4 hurks new jerseyans are kicked off unemployment and find themselves in devastating circumstances. it is unconscionable, it is unacceptable, and we must, as the congress of the united states of america, do something about it. and i yield back to the gentleman. mr. horsford: i thank the gentleman from new jersey and again, i commend you for raising your voice and urging this body to do its job. on behalf of your constituents, the people of new jersey, who elect -- who elected you to bring your perspective to this

congress, you're asking the same question many of us asking, to our colleagues on the other side, do they know what it's like to be unemployed? do they know what it's like to have to look for a job day after day, week after week, submitting resumes, not knowing if you're going to be called back? do they know what it's like to struggle? do they know what it's leek to have to look a kid, one of your children, in the eyes and worry about how you're going to make ends meet? that's the reality for 1.4 million americans today. because congress has failed to act. and whether they have been in that situation or not, they need to understand that's the reality for many americans. so i thank you for your comments and for being here during this special hour on behalf of the congressional black caucus and ommend you for your hard work. mr. speaker, the reality of the

situation is significant for many. i e my colleagues last week, -- like my colleagues, last week, i went to a local center in my district, work force kebses, to talk with a group of workers, job seekers, people looking for work. when i walked into the center, the one-stop center where everybody looks for the jobs on the job board was packed. there was a waiting list to get in in order to get onto a computer to search for jobs. and i talked to one unemployed worker, her name is alfredine. i i want to share her story with you because it hit me that this is who i'm fighting for. she's one of those 20,000 nevadans affected by the expiration of her unemployment insurance, but she worked for 20

years doing patient admissions for a local medical facility in southern nevada. she was laid off in 2012. . which resulted in her losing her health insurance. unfortunately she was later diagnosed with breast cancer and has been living with one of her children while she trains to become certified to get another job. alfredine is using her remaining uninsurance benefits to cover some of her medical costs, and she just found out recently, fortunately, that she qualifies now for health insurance under the affordable care act. but what alfredine told me, what all of the workers i talked to told me is, what she wants most is what she had in 2012 is to go

back to work. to regain her independence and to help others do the work that she loves by admitting them and helping them get health care. so alfredine is an example to me of the 1.4 million americans who are out there who are trying. who want this congress to try as well. they expect us to do our job, and we failed them. we failed when we left in december, and we are failing them every day that we don't extend unemployment insurance benefits. so i'm urging my colleagues to not allow another day to go without us taking action. it is true that one person every eight seconds loses unemployment insurance. it's true that 72,000 additional americans will be affected every

week that this congress fails to act. but we have the ability to do something about it. and that's why we are here tonight. i want to turn now to my co-appingor of this special order -- co-anchor of this special order hour, he's a great colleague, someone who i have profound respect for, he works tirelessly on behalf of the constituents who elected him from new york, and he brings so many great perspectives to the special order topics that we have been able to cover. i'd like to recognize him now, the gentleman from new york, congressman jefferies. mr. jefferies: let me thank my good friend, the distinguished gentleman from the silver state and the anchor of state's c.b.c. special order for his eloquence, continued leadership, and of

course for all of the hard work you put in on behalf of the people you represent back at home. it's been an honor and privilege to serve with you as well as all the members of the congressional black caucus-to continue to be a voice, conscience of the congress fighting hard each and every day to bring to life the american dream for the greatest number of people possible in this wonderful country of ours. last week we commemorated the 50th anniversary of the declaration of the war on poverty. president f 1964 lyndon baines johnson came to this house before a joint session of congress and rolled out a series of initiatives designed to march us toward what he would term the great society. a war on poverty to lift people

out of their perilous condition and bring to life for them the american dream. this war on poverty was for programs like medicare, medicaid, school breakfast, head start, the food stamp act, minimum wage enhancement, job corps, college work study. program after program enacted which 1964 and 1966 taken together were effective in lifting mlts of americans -- millions of americans out of their impoverished condition. 50 years later we made a tremendous amount of progress, but unfortunately there are many in this chamber who instead of continuing the great legacy started by president lyndon baines johnson, here in january of 1964, have instead engaged in

what perhaps is more appropriately termed, a bar on the poor. -- a war on the poor. a war on working families, a war on the middle class, a war on senior citizens, and in its current manifestation, a war on he long-term unemployed. unfortunately, whatever folks identify, set their sights on a government program that they don't like, the operating procedure follows a script that's all too familiar. demonize, downsize, and ultimately pulverize. first, the script says you got to demonize the program. thanks to the american people that don't necessarily hold up to the scrutiny of a comprehensive factual examination. once you demonize the program, it enables you to downsize it.

to reduce its impact. to reduce our investment. and ultimately the goal of those who are engaged in this war on the poor, war on the long-term unemployed in this current iteration, ultimately the goal is once you've demonized it and downsized it in some way, you just want to pulverize it. so if you think about this, in the context of what we face right now in america, we have heard emanating from this chamber and other parts of the country this characteristicure -- caricature of individuals who supposedly are the long-term unemployed. as the gentleman from nevada has indicated, we heard representations suggestive that these are individuals who are couch potatoes, sitting at home channel surfing, who only get

exercise once a month apparently when they are running out to get their unemployment check and race back into the house. and that's the only exercise that they get. what is the basis for this caricature? what analysis has been done of were americans who unceremoniously thrown off the unemployment rolls to come to this conclusion? you have no evidence. -- evidence to make this caricature. we know that current statistics suggest that here in america, while we have made significant progress since the great recession, 8.1 million private sector jobs that have been created, we know that we still have a way to go. and for every 2.8 americans who are looking for a job, only one job exists.

so the facts are working against those who are unemployed at this point. it's not as if they are not working hard to find a job. the jobs statistically don't exist. simply in terms of the raw numbers. we have an economy that needs to produce more jobs. what i have found fascinating about this whole situation in addition to this unwarranted caricature that you have created folks on the other side of this debate, we don't necessarily like unemployment insurance and have been plotting to work against it, perhaps since the moment that it was first put into effect in this great country, is that during the short time that representative horsford and payne and beatty and veasey, and myself have been

here what folks here in the congress have systematically done is to undermine our ability to actually recover and produce jobs. and this is now at least the third meaningful instance in which this type of unproductive legislative behavior has been witnessed. we first saw it in the march toward april 1 when economists objectively warned if we allow sequestration to take effect, what would happen is that we would cost the economy pproximately 750,000 jobs. yet folks on the other side of the aisle, many people in this town, decided that notwithstanding the random nature of the $85 billion in sequestration effects, the impact that it would have adversely on the economy, that we were going to allow

sequestration to take hold on april 1. that's exactly what was done. an unproductive, unconstructive action that robs the american people of jobs that might have otherwise existed. and then in october of this past year we see another unproductive action taken by those who constantly complain about the alleged slow pace of the economic recovery, but then consistently take actions to undermine it. so on october 1 we shut down the government because of this unbridled obsession that some people have with the affordable care act. even though at the time it was the law of the land, it remains the law of the land, passed by a duly elected congress in 2010, signed into law by president obama as the first term

president, passed. constitutional muster and decision written by chief justice john roberts, and reaffirmed by the american people with the electoral college landslide that took place in november of 2012. yet you came to this floor and decided you were going to shut down the government for 16 days. why was that unproductive? because not only did you push hardworking civil servants out analysis ut objective of the situation said you cost .he economy $24 billion then you create this cake ture you want -- caricature you want us to believe with this plethora of jocks that exist and they can't find them. now we find ourselves in another situation where instead of

coming together to try and asonably take steps to put americans back to work, what you decided to do since unemployment benefits for the long-term unemployed were allowed to expire on december 28, is that you're threatening to cost the 240,000 n additional jobs. so for the third time within the last 12 months legislative malpractice here in the congress essentially has resulted or will result in the loss of hundreds of thousands of dollars and billions of dollars in lost economic productivity. yet you create this caricature

that there are americans sitting at home on the couch channel surfing, getting one day of exercise per month, racing out to get their unemployment check. there is no basis for that conclusion. that's why we are here on the floor of the house of representatives saying that we need to pass an extension of unemployment benefits and we need to pass it now. as i prepare to yield to my good friend, i just want to point out that at this point in time as the chart reflects the long-term unemployment rate in america is higher than it ever has been before. as a percentage of those who are unemployed. 37.7% of s that today those americans receiving

unemployment insurance are long-term unemployed. meaning they have been out of work for 27 weeks or more. in prior instances when this congress and our government has allowed unemployment insurance to expire for the long-term unemployed, the percentage of those who actually have been out of work for 27 weeks or more was much lower. 15 points lower when unemployment insurance was allowed to expire for this category of americans in march of 2004, about 16 points lower when unemployment insurance was allowed to expire for this category of long-term unemployed folks, when it was allowed -- allowed to expire in april of 1994 under president clinton. and if my math serves me

correctly, about 22 points lower in june of 1985 under president reagan when unemployment benefits were allowed to expire. so we're in a very different situation than we have been in the past. it's an urgent situation, progress has been made. we still have a long way to go. that's why it's necessary for us to do everything possible to help out those americans in need and not leave them on the battlefield simply to fend for themselves. i yield back my time to my good friend, steven horsford. mr. horsford: i appreciate very much the gentleman from new york, the co-anchor and the chronology and the facts that you have laid out to make the case that unfortunately, it's not just the unemployment insurance benefits that have been under attack by the house republicans to re-authorize or to extend, it's been other

bridges that have helped the middle class or those who are aspiring to be part of the middle class in just the last year that this congress has failed to act on. may i inquire to the speaker how much time we have left? the speaker pro tempore: you have 10 minutes remaining. mr. horsford: thank you. we would leek to use that final 10 minutes then, mr. speaker -- we would like to use that final 10 minutes, then, mr. speaker, to close by highlighting the points that my colleague, mr. jeffries, just did a phenomenal job of laying out, which is, this is not the first time unemployment insurance benefits have been extended. in fact, when you look at history, and this chart shows that while there's still more work to be done to help the unemployed and i completely agrow that our focus must be on creating jobs and growing the economy, that's why the

congressional black caucus and individual members like myself have proposed job creating legislation, the first bill i introduced as a member of congress was a job creating measure to help people in nevada's fourth district go to work. to help bring down our stubbornly high unemployment. but for those who are in the unemployment calculation, according to the bureau of labor statistics from january, 2007, to date, unemployment insurance has repeatedly been extended. including by republican administrations. t was in june of 2008 that then-president george w. bush authorized emergency unemployment insurance benefits to be extended and what was that unemployment rate at the time? 5.6%. and he didn't extend

unemployment insurance one time. he extended it five times and he didn't offer a proposal for how it had to be paid for because it was an emergency. it was an emergency then, and it's an emergency now with the national unemployment rate just below 7%, when 1.4 million americans who rely on the unemployment insurance benefit have now lost it. it's an emergency for these individuals and it's an emergency for our economy. so for those on the other side who don't want to do this because it's the right thing to do for our neighbors, for hardworking americans who have done everything that they can and at no fault of their own, they are still unemployed, if you don't want to do it for that reason, then maybe do it because it's good for the local economy. because the money that is

provided for under the unemployment insurance benefit is then spent by those beneficiaries in local grocery stores, it is spent paying utility bills, paying rent, and that all helps affect the economy. failing to renew the emergency unemployment insurance program will cost the economy, as my league from new york said, over 200,000 jobs this year, including 3,000 jobs in nevada, according to the congressional budget office. the expiration of the federal unemployment insurance at the end of last week is already taking more than $400 million out of the pockets of american job seekers nationwide and state and local economies, according to analysis done by the ways and means committee. in nevada, in the first week from the loss of uninsurance benefits expiring, $5.4 million

has been lost. the national -- excuse me. the nonpartisan congressional budget office has found that unemployment benefits are one of the most effective fiscal policies to increase economic growth and help employment. so if our colleagues on the other side don't want to do it because it's the right thing to do for those four out of five of the beneficiaries that have children, if they don't want to do it for half of the beneficiaries who have gone to some form of college, if they don't want to do it for the veterans who also rely in some part on unemployment insurance benefits, then do it for the local economy. but whatever your reason, do it. i'd like to ask my colleague if he has any final remarks that he'd like to offer and then i

want to close by just debunking this pay-for argument that some on the other side have again proposed, that the only way they're going to vote for something is if they're going to -- if there's a plan to pay for it. extend time to the gentleman. mr. jeffries: as a result of this argument as we've heard related to the need to pass unemployment benefits, only if offset or ay-for or host of programs that are on the g.o.p. wish list are passed simultaneous to us trying to provide some measure of relief to unemployed americans. i'm going to let the distinguished gentleman from nevada address this argument in the current situation but i

would note that we have seen -like pe of ransom behavior here in this chamber before. we saw it when i first arrived on the floor of the house of representatives and we were waiting day after day, week after week, month after month for a superstorm sandy relief bill to be passed more than 75 days, unprecedented in the history of our country's response to a natural disaster, the people i represent back home devastated by superstorm sandy and the reason for the holdup? because this ransom-like demand of offsets, unprecedented in american history, was put before us. same situation as it relates to the government shutdown where we're told that you can keep the government open, that's a proper function for us here in the

congress but only under circumstances where you delay the -- delay, defund or destroy the affordable care act. ransom-like behavior. now we find ourselveses in a similar situation. and i yield to my distinguished colleague from nevada to lay out why we once again find ourselves dealing with unreasonable demands to do what otherwise is our proper duty here on the floor of the house of representatives and in washington. mr. horsford: i thank the gentleman from new york and as i come to a close, let me just say directly if president george bush did it five times and didn't offer a pay-for, he said on december 14, 2012, during his weekly radio address, that he was reminding the congress that, quote, no final bill was sent to him extending these unemployment benefits for 750,000 americans

whose benefits will expire then, on december 28. he went on to say, these americans rely on their unemployment benefits to pay for their mortgage or rent, and their critical bills. they need our assistance in these difficult times and we cannot let them down. as i said the unemployment rate at that time was below 6%. it is now below 7% and it is time for this congress to act. but if you demand a pay-for then i have one suggestion. what about eliminating or closing a number of the corporate tax loopholes such as eliminating the tax ensentiv for companies that get benefits for shipping american jobs overseas? right now, the united states oses an estimated $150 billion annually to tax avoidance schemes involving tax havens. many of our largest and most profitable companies paid no

federal taxes in previous years. so for the other side to make this argument is disingenuous. it's unconscionable. that you would hold hostage benefits for 1.4 million americans for three months at a cost of $6.5 billion when you have a tax code that is littered with corporate tax incentives for shipping american jobs overseas. if we close those tax loopholes, we could reshore those jobs become to america, putting americans back to work, reducing our unemployment rate, and growing america's economy. that's what we should be doing, that's why this congress needs to act and it's time for this congress under this eleadership of the speaker to do just that. mr. speaker, i know our time has come to an end, i would ask unanimous consent that all members have five legislative

days in which to revise and extend their remarks and include extraneous materials. the speaker pro tempore: the gentleman's time has ex-peered. -- expired. for what purpose does the gentleman from nevada rise? mr. horsford: i move that the house do now adjourn. the speaker pro tempore: the question is on the motion to adjourn. those in favor say aye. those opposed, no. the ayes have it. the motion is adopted. accordingly the house stands adjourned until

our series, first ladies, influence and image returns tonight. also on c-span radio and c- span.org.

>> on the next open washington journal, discussion of the cover mice over the omnibus bill. government funding expires on wednesday. west virginia representative rahal on the nick chemical leak in west virginia. by answering questions posed one of our viewers. how many doctors are needed to implement the health care law? plus your e-mails, phone calls, and tweets on "washington journal." 7 a.m. on c-span. the house budget committee, paul ryan, was also at the brookings institutes social mobility sub -- summit. he spoke about the war on poverty and why he believes it failed. this is 30 minutes.

mobility including community resources like churches and volunteer groups. we have a long day of discussions, started this ,orning with senator joe brandt and now we are talking about thertunity and poverty in united states. in our relentless attempts to be nonpartisan or bipartisan we began today with the democrats have german paul ryan of the budget committee. here is something that might

surprise you. knowledge counts for a lot in congress. paul ryan's career illustrates this claim. he was a former congressional staffer and we all know they are necessarily brilliant. second upon arriving in congress he looked around and asked himself, what makes this place run? the answer, of course, is money and the budget is the source of all money, so he decided he would learn more about the federal budget than anyone else. he knewn hour or two, more about the budget than anybody up on the hill. and of course the most senior positions on the hill are based on merit and logic, so it was natural he would become the head of the budget committee. another thing that might surprise you -- before he was so interested in me budget, he was very interested in issues having to do with poverty and opportunity. especially opportunity. he had top staffers in this

area, which is always key to understanding what a member of congress is really concerned about. recently, he has been doing an amazing thing, or just spending a lot of time in inner cities and other poor communities meeting with people who run programs for the poor. this is not exactly on the top of the list for most republican members of congress, so it's quite an amazing thing. he is learning from these poor communities and what policies they are driving into. so, chairman ryan? [applause] >> thanks so much, ron. over in thell hallway. talk.d i and ron had a i'm a big fan of their work. these jokesack about coming out of the incubator of the conservative

think tank, but this is my fifth time. i do not think i can make those jokes anymore. i feel comfortable. i am here to give a report on social ability, the opening. it came out six years ago. i read it last week. i'm grateful you invited me here. i'm very pleased to see this conversation occurring. they asked me to do two things. the issueow do i see of opportunity? ways towhat are some increase opportunity? what is opportunity and how do we get more of it? behind every opportunity is someone who takes a chance. you mentor a child. you advise the student. you hire someone. two people, normally strangers, pay for a bond and create value to spread knowledge, to help each other. so, i would say the key to

andrtunity is trust. government, when used wisely, can increase that trust. take one example. the interstate highway system. that is something we can all agree on. of course the federal government should build the interstate highway system, because that would encourage interstate commerce. it did for >> reason. the more -- it did for a simple reason. the more people interact, the more they trust. the more there is trust, the more there is collaboration. the more there is collaboration, the more there is economic growth. for me, when it comes to judging a particular policy reform, i have a really simple test. does it bring people together, or pull them apart? does it encourage trust and collaboration, or does it stifle them? powerfult is a very

tool. too powerful, you might say. just as it can build and encourage, it can frustrate and it's her. as a conservative, i look at ronald reagan and his insights. one of his insights is that tax breaks do not just take money out of people's pockets. they can take people out of the workforce. just as government can increase opportunity, government can destroy it as well. and perhaps -- there is no better example of government's missty to disappoint, to the mark then lbj's war on poverty. this month marks the 50th anniversary of that work. for years politicians have pointed to the money they have spent for the programs they created. but this way our spending trillions of dollars, 47 million people live in poverty. of seven people.

that is the highest rate in the generation. it'se spending a lot, and just not working. it is missing its mark. well, why? i think it all goes back to opportunity. poverty is not just form -- some form of deprivation. it is a form of isolation. if there is anything i have been learning, it is that. what we know about the poor? ron would say three things. they are less likely to have graduated from high school, they are less likely to work full- time, and they are less likely to have gotten married before they had kids. they have been taught off from three crucial sources of support -- education, work, and family. government is not solely responsible for these trends, but in other ways government is deepening the divide. for the past 50 years it has built up a hodgepodge of programs in a furious attempt to

replace these missing links. and because these programs are so disorganized and dysfunctional, they pull families those are two government and away from society in so many -- they pull families closer to government and away from society in so many ways. our goal should be to reintegrate the poor into communities, but washington has been locked up like they are in some massive quarantine. we need to bring them into our civil society. they are not fulfilling their potential, and we, we are all missing out. povertyto remember that is not some rare disease from which the rest of us are all of me in. -- from which the rest of us are all immune. expression of a widespread disease, economic insecurity. most families worry about making insmed me. that is why concern for the poor

-- it's not some policy next. -- it's not some policyniche. it cannot be -- it is not some policy niche. checked onome box the next contract with america. so, how do we bring in the poor? i'm afraid i don't have all the answers, but a little humility in washington might be a good start. today i would like to talk about a couple of ways to improve our ending poverty efforts. here are two ideas. complicity and standards. i think it would help us with one big problem that we call the poverty trap. you see, it turns out the central planners are not very good at planning after all. washington attacks problems with a haphazard, whack a mole approach. is no exception. it is the nature of the beast.

before johnson became president, we have social security. johnson added programs. after he retired from office, washington kept adding to the alphabet soup. the list goes on. urban institute, a man has done interesting work on the problem. because these programs were developed at different times, there is little coordination among them. are meanse they tested, poor families face discouraging tax rates. the government actually discourages them from making more money. what does this mean? with two kidsmom in colorado. if her income jumps, she will extraep much of her

$30,000. according to these calculations if she enrolled in lands like her stamps, s-chip, marginal rate will be as high as 15%. thehe is another programs, rate will reach about 80%. in other words, you go to work and you will keep less than $.20 of every extra dollar you earn. i'm sure she's not going to walk around with a calculator going where is my implicit marginal tax rate? but she gets it. the government is holding her back. this has to be addressed. the good news is, there is a better way to do this. policy makers are working on a solution to the problem all the way around. simplicity. in 2012, britain produced a far reaching reform. the government is putting this idea into practice. erupt.oing to

there are no two ways about that. the basic concept is very simple. we should learn from their experience. it took six programs ranging from housing to income support and collapsed them into one overall funding. familyre cut off once a made a certain amount of money with the old programs. with the new program, they are tapered off gradually. eitc gives workers a boost without hurting their prospects. yeah i.t. see increases employment among low skilled workers. ite the universal credit, gives families credit. it helps them take ownership of their lives. there is certainly room for improvement. just last week my friend senator marco rubio propose that workers

get assistance once a month instead of once a year so it's easier for them to plan ahead. that is an idea in my opinion it makes a lot of sense. but whatever form it takes place, we have to encourage work. there should be standards. concept.a novel in 1996, congress began to require people on welfare to work. and welfare rolls dropped dramatically. child poverty fell by double digits. the problem is, we have not applied this sensible far enough. we need to do more. man whoikes to say, a is involved at that moment, what works his work. way we to change the think about work. it is not a penalty. it is the shortest, surest route back into society. if you are working, you are meeting people. you are learning new skills.

you are contributing to society. that is the westway -- that is the best way to get a raise or a new job. we want people back in the work or so they can share their talents and their new skills with the rest of us. we are losing out as much as they are. in short, federal assistance should not be a way station. it ought to be an on ramp, a quick drive back into the hustle and bustle of life. we have got a lot more work to do. we have to tackle a host of issues. education, criminal justice, criminal reform, health care. performers at the state and local level are already doing a lot of this artwork. federal government should let them take the lead and learn from their example. said here is very radical, but you can already hear the howls of protest from certain corners. all i would say to the critics idease criticizing new

and perhaps new thinking in a more effective war on poverty, all i would say is, we want to hear their ideas, too. good intentions are not enough. concern for the poor -- concern for the poor does not demand a commitment to the status quote. it demands a commitment to results. we should not measure our results by how much we spend on welfare. we should measure our results by how many people we helped get off of welfare. later this year, i plan on saying a whole lot more about this subject. but before i rollout any policy prescription for were families, i need to hear more from the -- for poor families, i need you hear more from the real experts. the families themselves. if there is one thing i have learned from 15 years in congress, it is that washington does not have all the answers. in fact, sometimes they are right under our noses. my mother used to tell me -- son, you have

two ears and one mouth. use them and that proportion. sometimes in congress i have lost sight of that. heed that kind of advice. just as we need to run the numbers and study up on the issues. we need to help -- we need to listen the people we are trying to out, because they are the ones on the front lines. only the people in the community can solve the problems facing their community. trust is the bedrock of opportunity. federal government has to trust them with all of the respect to all the brilliant minds here at brookings and capitol hill -- we need all hands on deck. we need to enlist these poverty fighters, the people who never come to washington. we need to enlist these community leaders and working families in the real war on poverty. there is only one way to beat artie, and that is face to face. for too long -- there is only

one way to be poverty, and that is face to face. to themselves, i'm working hard. i'm paying my taxes. government is going to take care of us. in so many ways, the government has reinforced and encouraged this view. that is not going to cut it anymore. we need everybody to get involved. every person, community to community, face to face. the truth is in you are helping people in need, you are helping yourself. into reintegrate the poor our community as we will reinvigorate the country overall. with healthy, growing families will have a healthy, growing economy. at its best, collaboration does not just build a growing economy. -- it builds better character. it will make us a better country. le, thank you for

your invitation. i look forward to the conversation. i think it is vital we make every family part of the american experiment. and if we have a vibrant battle of ideas, we will get there and make this moment what it is. thank you very much. i appreciate it. [applause] >> thank you. interesting remarks. at that a lot of people in the audience are reflecting on them and thinking about questions it would like to ask you. but i'm the one who gets to ask you the questions, so -- a lot of what you say has the

ring of white used to be called compassionate conservatism -- has the ring of what used to be called compassionate conservatism. are you a compassionate conservative? >> i am not a fan of that term. it implies that conservatism is not compassionate. i think that it is the most compassionate form of government because it respects the dignity of the individual. it aims to have -- to help the most people have the best life. the condition of your birth does -- determine the outcome of your life. that is how i was raised. irish catholic family, from immigrants who came from the irish potato famine. wellave documented this so -- stewart over at heritage -- we are losing sight of it.

we are losing mobility. we understand that. that whole generations of americans do not know what this is. when you explain it or tell it to them, they don't think it is for them. that is a problem. i do believe that conservatism is the best answer for this, otherwise i would not be who i am. answer to know the the next question, and it will get a laugh anyway. tony blair said the only difference between compassionate conservatism and conservatism is under compassionate conservatism, they tell you they are not going to help you, but they're really sorry. [laughter] i'm going to guess you disagree with that. the leftdoes show that makes jokes about the sort of thing. i realize you do not like the term. but many things you discuss i think our part and parcel of what people think of as -- local, working face to face,

helping people in the place where they live, listening to them. people ono you say to the left to say that is not going to cut it? are advocates of the status quo or who advocated for the status of where we are right now say just you more of this, that does not cut it. for those who say it could be worse, that is hardly an effective answer. do we mean when we say conservatism? or why do we have better ideas? i truly believe that we have made the mistake in this war on poverty with the unintended consequence, mind you, that we have displaced immunity. that we have crowded out and pushed aside what many of us call civil society and we have told people in this country it is no longer their responsibility to help care for others. that is not saying this is just a convenient excuse for cutting

a program or stopping the federal government's role role. government'sl roll. no, i'm not trained to say that. i think the left made the mistake of thinking this was all about material deprivation. we isolated people in our communities and they put a wall separating people from integrating with each other. we need to tear down those walls, look at how these programs are doing harm, trapping people in poverty, and how we can refocus on an agenda of upper mobility, turning that escalator back on and getting people back into life. i always hesitate to say this because as a person in government, it sounds preachy, but you cannot ignore the culture. you have written all the stuff about marriage, the breakdown of family. these things cannot be ignored. it is not someone in washington who was going to solve this. this is media, churches, everything.

barriersmove a lot of that are harming our culture. we can remove a lot of barriers that are slowing down income mobility, harming economic growth and opportunity. that is what we should focus on. that to me is what a proactive positive conservative solution would look like. that programs. many people see you as a hero in this effort does you have tried to balance the budget. is that a necessary part of your war on poverty, to cut programs? >> it has nothing to do with a line on a spreadsheet. it has nothing to do with what the number ought to be. it has everything to do with is this working or not? working means people getting on with their lives and hitting their potential. our people having the best chance to make the most of their life in this society?

i do believe that freedom, free enterprise rock or by keeping -- free enterprise brought forth by keeping government limited is the best way to do this. that does not mean we believe no government. we men -- we believe a government that is effective. weare biting off more than can chew. we are crowding out civil society. we are presuming we can replace these missing links and civil society that just can't be replaced i anything but families. have --t this fight we i do believe we will lose this century. it does not matter if you read charles murray or any of these folks. we are on a dangerous trajectory in this country. the economy is a big part of that. slow growth is part of that. the greatest casualty is the

least among us, the poor being trapped in poverty. i really believe we need to take a look at this. when we apply our principles -- liberty, freedom, free enterprise, self-determination, subsidiaries -- along with solidarity and community, you can have a rich, vibrant mosaic of a society where people can really make the most of their lives. we can get back to those days of upper mobility where people come to this country or are born in this country and say, i can make it. i can be who i want to be. we can get there if we really compete for these outcomes. if we measure all the stuff, how much money we throw at it, what the spreadsheet looks like, we will miss the mark. but if we measure based on outcome and results, i feel like we can make a difference. let's assume you are right and the real problem is government and too many programs and removing too much authority

and responsibility from local levels in churches and so forth. can you actually foresee that you could convince some of the people in this audience and the people in the media and voters of wisconsin and the rest of the country, especially states like new york and california but that is true and the government is really in the way and if you that that is true and government is really in the way and if you balance the budget there will be a better result? >> why would i be doing this if i didn't believe that? [laughter] honestly. >> some people call it an heroic act and know you probably cannot convince people, but you know you are right. once said, of mine you do not want to be sitting on rockingnt porch in your chair with your grandkid on your knee and say, you know what, granddaughter?

to hell ina went handbasket, i want you to know that i voted no every epoch the way. [laughter] majorityeve that the of americans understand what is going on today is not working. that society is fraying at the seams. that we have to do something different. that the status quo is not working. and i think new ideas based on these ideals that were the founding principles of our country that made us special in the first place, i do believe the majority of americans can agree with this, can embrace this. if i did not believe that, why would i be doing this? what is the point? do i believe the principles of welfare reform that were majority principles in 1976 can the gun again? yes. they were. the results are very effective. do i believe that americans want a safety net that is effective,

that is truly their for people in need? yes. conservatives believe that, too. i think what happens in these lump someone into a character. this is a liberal who cares nothing about growing -- who cares nothing except about growing government. is person just want to help the rich, who wants no government. you know what? it's probably somewhere way in the middle between those two spears. -- those two spheres. on those caricatures, we will just do this all the time, we will just smash into each other. if we have a conversation about how to or economic development, a conversation about our culture, which is inherently nongovernment, i believe we can make a difference. and i believe a majority of americans still believe in the american dream, the american idea, and if they knew they

could do something to build their communities, they will do it. i believe it can be done. yes, i do. end by inviting -- when you do want to say what your agenda is. and i'm sure their audience will want to hear the specifics. >> after heritage, right? >> no, before heritage. [laughter] >> for joining me. >> please join me in thanking chairman ryan. [captioning performed by national captioning institute] [captions copyright national cable satellite corp. 2014]

>> on the next "i can come from him the final in lyndonville. on the next "washington journal," the next omnibus spending bill. how many doctors are needed to implement the healthcare law? eastern on c-.m. span. >> coming up, "first ladies,"