debt service costs, we will miss the opportunity to improve the lives of every new jersey citizen, not just this -- not just a select few. i'm ready to engage in those conversations and help, with you, to truly create in this state an honest attitude of choice. e result will be a better, smarter, stronger new jersey. the results from our our refusal to make the tough choice, our refusal to choose will be a we canner new england and make no -- will be a weaker new jersey. and make no mistake about it. if we choose everything, no matter what rhetoric either side of the aisle uses, the only way to continue to pay for this is to burden our middle class with even higher taxes in this state. that is to me, and i believe to all of you, an unacceptable alternative and it is an abandonment of our duty.

centuries ago a philosopher wrote, choice, not chance, determines your destiny. and this remains true for new jersey today. our destiny is not set. it is the product of the choices we make. our future is not set. it too is the product of the choices we make from this day forward. so let us choose wisely. we're sent here to act. let's not fail to act. let's create an attitude of choice. let us choose to invest in better schools and not in the status quo in which we leave some children behind and put the rest at risk of being swallowed up by a rising tide of mediocrity and failure. let's choose the path of safer streets. let's not leave our families vulnerable to the heartless car jackers who would destroy our

quality of life. let us celebrate every life by creating an opportunity for every citizen through an excellent education, a productive job and a safe and thriving community. in this hour of choice, let us choose a better new jersey. [applause] you see, this is what we owe our citizens. our children and ourselves.

new jersey has long been blessed , really blessed, by an abundance of natural resources and by our extraordinary human talent. in 2014 we've also been blessed by a return to prosperity. let us all choose to make the most of it. and let's choose to do it together. we have succeeded, working together to be an example for he entire country, to spirited bipartisanship. let us not abandon that course. it is the course to success and happiness for all the people of the state of new jersey. thank you, god bless you and god bless the great state of new jersey. [applause]

[captioning performed by national captioning institute] [captions copyright national cable satellite corp. 2014] >> and look for more live state of the state coverage on the c-span networks. in under an hour, the u.s. house returns for what we expect will be a couple of votes and that will do it for legislative work today. earlier the house passed the short-term continuing resolution, continuing federal funding through january 18 this saturday, so that the house and senate can finish work on the longer term omnibus spending bill for the remapeder of fiscal year 2014. live house coverage when they return at 5:00 p.m. eastern here on c-span. >> as congress begins consideration of the fiscal year

2014 omnibus spending bill, we're joined by eric of "the hill." what are some of the top-line details we should know about this bill? >> this spending bill is about $1 trillion in total. this is a true bipartisan compromise and they worked all the way into sunday evening to harbaugh out the differences between the federal government's budget. it includes compromises on what were originally 134 policy riders. these are policy limitations on everything from preventing the postoffice from discontinuing saturday mail, that's in the bill, to preventing the export-import bank from blocking funds for coal plants overseas. that was an important priority for house appropriations committee chairman hal rogers. that's in the bill. the other things that were not in the bill, there's no provision blocking all funding for obamacare. that's the issue that shut down the government for 16 days in october.

however, conservatives can point to the fact that a billion dollars has been taken out of the obamacare prevention fund, which they've often derided as a slush fund that health and human services secretary sebelius can dip into to bolster obamacare funding. and overall obamacare funding is held at the postsequestration level. so there's no new funding for obamacare. >> 2014, an important year for u.s. efforts in afghanistan. how does the omnibus handle war funding? >> war funding is at $92 billion, which is on the high end. that's what the house was seeking. this will help the pentagon deal with what is faunding cut, about $20 billion in base funding reduction from what the house had sought. so, it was a pretty strong number. eight of the -- aid to the afghan government is limited. there are policy provisions which would require bilateral security agreement in order for full funding to the afghan government.

and additionally in that section there's new limitations on aid to egypt as well, which saw a coup in and its funding limited by the administration and flow have to meet certain democracy objectives to receive its full military assistance as well. >> you reported on some language in the bill, changing or reverting back to some of the benefits that were taken away, the military benefits. tell us more about that. >> that's right. the ryan-murray budget deal cut about $85 billion in spending over 10 years in order to boost spending in the near term on the discretionary side. how they got to that overall cut involved a cut to military pensions of about $6 million. this is a cost of living adjustment for military retirees and it's proven quite controversial. even among normal deficit hawks on the republican side and there's a big effort in the senate by democrats and republicans to reverse that. this bill is not completely

reversed the pension cut. instead it addresses how it affects disabled veterans and survivors of members of the military who have been killed or who have died while in service. this would exempt them from the cut and that is part of this deal. >> the politics of getting this through the house and senate. first the house, you tweeted earlier about republican leaders saying that the leaders are starting to sell the $1 trillion omnibus to the rank and file. how are they going about doing that? >> that's right. already there's talk about it in this morning's conference meeting, among house republicans. they're really pointing out that this is bringing discretionary funding back to the year of the bush administration, before the obama stimulus. it's a lower number that was in one of the first paul ryan budgets. and they're emphasizing that there are a lot of conservative principles, including on obamacare, as i mentioned, that are in here and worth going for. a lot of the members have just started to review the bill, it's

1,582 pages. it dropped at 8:00 p.m. last night. when i was talking to them they were still reviewing it. they have local concerns. representative chaffetz, a true conservative, but someone who also can side with leadership when it makes sense for him, was concerned about a land provision, payment in lieu of taxes, that relates to rural communities and payments to local governments. so people are bringing up individual pieces of the bill that they're worried about and talking to leaders about how it might be addressed in other legislative vehicles. there's a lot of conversation going on. >> on the democratic side, with the administration, you report supporting the omnibus spending measure, does that make it easy for house democrats to go ahead and favor the bill? >> i think so. i think there will probably be a strong house democratic vote. steny hoyer, the minority whip, who opposed the budget deal because it didn't do enough to create a grand bargain, to deal

with long-term deficits, have said he will support this measure. so i think there's going to be a strong vote. but talking to members and seeing if they have concerns, there are cuts to national institutes of health funding and certain programs, especially in the education department, that may deter some of the especially liberal members for voting for it. >> read more from erik wasson on hehill.com and follow him on twitter @elwasson. [captioning performed by national captioning institute] [captions copyright national cable satellite corp. 2014] >> as the president first stated in march and re-emphasized tuesday night, the goal of the united states in afghanistan and pakistan is to disrupt, dismantle and defeat al qaeda and its extremist allies. and to prevent its return to both countries. the international military effort to stabilize afghanistan is necessary to achieve this overarching goal. >> watergate served two presidents as defense secretary, from 2006 through 2007 and

c.i.a. director in the early 1990's. friday at 6:30 p.m. eastern on c-span 2, a live book tv event. secretary gates talks about his management of the wars in iraq and afghanistan and his relationship with the white house and congress. and in a few weeks, look for women's history for beginners author. she'll take your questions and comments. live on "in depth," february 2 at noon eastern. and online for the rest of january, join our book tv book club discussion. on "the liberty amendments." go to booktv.org and enter book lub to enter the chat. >> by 1895 or so, nine different railroads terminated in chattanooga. that created quite an economic base. every railroad had a switching yard or a repair shop.

there was a great terminal in the southeast. so all that employment, all that money turning over by the workers, it provided the economic stimulus to the growing city of chattanooga. even today railroads still move an amazing amount ofen toage through chattanooga -- of tonnage through chattanooga. coal trains, train after train after train loaded with grain, going to the seaports on the atlantic coast or going to power plants in georgia, etc. there's still a lot of commodities that move by rail and, again, due to the terrain, they have to come through chattanooga. >> this weekend on book tv and american history tv, a look at the history and literary life of chattanooga, tennessee. saturday at noon on c-span2 and unday at 5:00 p.m. on c-span3.

c-span, we bring public affairs events from washington directly to you. putting you in the room at congressional hearings, white house events, briefings and conferences and offering complete gavel to gavel coverage of the u.s. house. all as a public service of private industry. we're c-span, created by the cable tv industry 35 years ago and funded by your local cable or satellite provider. watch us in h.d., like us on facebook and follow us on twitter. >> we expect the house to gavel back in within the hour for a couple of votes. we'll have it live when they do that. until then, today's white house briefing, among the topics, the health care law and extending unemployment benefits. >> good afternoon, everyone. thank you for being here. i appreciate your patience. a lot of meetings today, including the president's cabinet meeting which was substantive and ran a little long. i just want to mention at the top, for those of you, miami

heat fans, who are planning on being at the event, i think the call time is 2:25. no problem here, if you get up and leave. and we're still taking questions. that is ok with me. in the interest of keeping it tight, i'll go straight to questions. jim? >> thanks, jay. on iran, today president rouhani said that the geneva agreement means, quote, the surrender of the -- [inaudible] >> it's not surprising to us nor should it be to you that the iranians are describing the agreement in a certain way for their domestic audience. they did the same thing following the agreement of the joint plan of action in november and we certainly expected they would do the same thing this time. the fact is, the agreement marks the first time in a decade that

iran has agreed to specific actions that halt progress on its nuclear program and roll back key aspects of the program. stopping the advance of the program and introducing unprecedented transparency into iran's nuclear activities, while we negotiate a long-term comprehensive solution. so, again, as i said yesterday, it doesn't matter what they say, it matters what they do. and the joint plan of action and the implementation agreement are concrete documents that commit aan to take specific steps in verifiable, transparent way. nd the coinciding moderate lief comes in trauverages -- trauverages. specifically as the adherence to

its commitments, iran's adherence to its commitments is verified. along the way, over the course of the six months. so, again, i think the issue here is the agreements that iran has made, the fact that it has committed itself to halting progress on its nuclear program, blowing back key aspects of it, and engaging in further negotiations in pursuit of a comprehensive resolution to this problem. >> you reject his statement that this agreement is an admission by the world of iran's peaceful nuclear program? >> again, i would just point you to what i said before. which is that we fully expected iranian leaders to describe the agreement in ways -- in a certain way for their domestic audience. they did that in november. what matters to us, to the p-5-plus-1, to the international

community, is what iranian leaders do, what iran does in keeping its commitments to this agreement. >> on another subject, on unemployment insurance, as of last night, some republicans are talking about a three-month extension. that was paid for. thealso included eliminated cuts on benefits to veterans. is that -- [inaudible] -- a position that the president would support? >> our positions to this has been clear from the beginning. senator reid has taken stepses to try to address the concerns of republicans who have said they want to extend unemployment insurance benefits, to the 1.3 million americans and their families who need them now. and we support rapid action. i'm not going to assess each voted proposal on how to do that. what the senate should do and then the house should do is pass

an extension of benefits right away. there is an existing bill which has made some progress in the senate that would do that immediately, without offsets, for just a short duration, three months. in the manner that was done under president george w. bush five times. and we certainly support that. we also have said that we would entertain discussions with congress about how to move forward for a longer term extension, but i don't have a view on or a characterization of other proposals that are popping up. we simply want the senate and then the thousand act. >> is -- and then the house to act. >> is -- [inaudible] -- for veterans be reinstated? >> what i would simply say on that again, when it comes to the u.i. extension, you know, we want it done. i'm not going to, you know,

associating specific ideas with this and asking for our view on kind of takes away from the urgent need for the senate to act and the house to act. senate leaders are working on this as we speak. we hope to see progress. we hope to see resolution. and if we have more specifics on individual proposals that are actually serious, then are going to get to the floor, we'll let you know. >> are there any changes to plans for the upcoming meeting with the french president and his partner? > there's no -- there are no changes. the president looks forward to seeing the president for the state visit in february. on issues of the delegation, the french come with, i would refer you to the french government. >> and secretary of state kerry said that the president is going to visit the vatican.

can you tell us anything about this trip, when it would happen and what the purpose of the visit would be? >> the president looks forward to meeting with the pope in the near future. i do not have any more details for you on that. timing or location. except to say that the president very much looks forward to a meeting. >> and lastly, on secretary of state kerry, israel's defense minister said that his quest for middle east peace is obsessive. how does the white house respond to that? >> i think you're referring to comments that were reported out of a private meeting, as i understand it. so what i can tell you is that the remarks of the israeli defense minister, if accurate, are offensive and inappropriate, especially in light of everything that the united states is doing to support israel's security needs. secretary kerry and his team have been working nonstop in their efforts to promote a secure peace for israel, because of the deep concern the united

states has and the deep commitment the united states has for and to israel's future and the israeli people. to question secretary kerry's motives and distort his proposals is not something we would expect from the defense minister of a close ally. again, that's if those remarks are accurate. >> do you know if this was discussed -- [inaudible] with the vice president? >> i don't have a readout ronde what's been reported on -- beyond what's been reported on that dinner. as we always make clear, we're committed to israels a security, we are committed to -- israel's security, we're committed to the middle east peace process in a way that secures israel and as you know secretary kerry met in paris on sunday with the arab peace initiative, follow-up committee, as part of a regular process of the negotiation consultations, on the final negotiation process between the israelis and the palestinians. the a.t.i. follow-up committee has been enormously helpful and

constructive in this effort. the arab ministers made clear that they support the efforts to take the next bold courageous steps in agreeing to a framework for permanent status negotiation. i would also note that president abbas and prime minister netanyahu have both demonstrated courageous and determined leadership over the last five months. they've made tough choices and they are contemplating even tougher choices in the weeks ahead. we have made progress with both parties and narrowed some of the gaps and we will continue to seek to narrow the gaps. we're pressing forward with both the israelis and the palestinians on this process. nd hope that it bears fruit. >> white house officials have -- [inaudible] against iran to a march to war and you know how democrats, pushing back against that, you've seen that from the senate foreign relations chairman.

and just a short time ago steny hoyer said that it's, quote, an irresponsible assertion and ought to be claarified and retracted. what is your response to that? >> i think i took questions thon for the last couple of days. -- >> he just said that today. >> as i have referred to others and i'm happy to do so again, the president believes that congress has been an excellent partner in the effort to construct the most comprehensive , effective sanctions regime in history. a sanctions regime that was designed specifically to try to change iranian behavior, to try to compel iran to the negotiating table. what we have seen in the last several months is that that effort has produced progress. it helped lead iran to the negotiating table, it helped the

p-5-plus-1 reach the joint plan of action agreement and the implementation agreement and now we will see whether or not iran is serious about reaching a comprehensive resolution so that we can in a verifiable, transparent way be confident that iran is not pursuing and will not obtain a nuclear weapon. and we can -- and to do that peacefully. that is certainly the president's preferred course of action. congressis simply that ought not pass new sanctions now because doing so could inadvertently, no doubt, actually compromise the potential to reach the shared goal that we have. instead of sanctioning the sanction -- by instead of sanctioning the sanctions regime

weakening it. instead of bolstering the p-5-plus-1's position in negotiations with iran, freying the unity that has been established and the consensus that has been established around the world with regards to iran's need to uphold its international obligations and to come into compliance with international obligations. so, our view is not one that says sanctions are bad. quite the contrary. this president has led the way constructing the most comprehensive and effective and punitive sanctions regime in history. and he hases done so because he has rallied the international community behind a consensus view on the need to prohibit iran from acquiring a nuclear weapon. so our view is simply that

congress ought to hold in advance any action on further sanctions, pending action by iran. progress or the lack of progress by iran in the negotiations. so -- and i think to the point you made in the beginning, the issue here isn't motive or intent, it's that the consequence, potentially, of sanctions legislation which would have a negative unintended effect of destabilizing the sanctions regime or fraying the consensus would be that it might limit the options available to the president in achieving his commitment to prevent iran from acquiring a nuclear weapon. so i know that was a long answer but i think it gives the full view of how we are looking at this and how we are having these conversations with lawmakers about our shared view that we need to take the necessary steps

at the right time to achieve our objective. >> is that a clarification on -- >> the answer i've been giving for several days, it is consistent with what we said in the past. >> do you stand by that? >> i'm not sure to what you are specifically referring. i know others have characterized what we said in that regard and i would simply say that -- >> i believe in november, americans don't want a march to war. >> i don't believe americans want a march to war. what i'm saying about actions in congress or potential actions in congress is that we share the objectives that leaders thon issue have when -- leaders on this issue have in congress. we share the issues of sanctions . our position has simply been that now is not the time to otentially and inadvertently fray the coalition that has assembled behind a position that's forced iran to the negotiating table or undermine the actual sanctions regime that has been so effective thus far.

it's not about -- surely nobody in congress wants that as an objective. and we share the desire to make sure that iran is held to account. but we need to do so in a way that allows maximum flexibility to achieve a resolution here peacefully. >> the president's speech tomorrow in north carolina, the senator will not be attending. is the president worried that he is a drag on some vulnerable democrats in this key election year? >> you know, i think senator hagen's office has addressed that. i think she's here working on important business. the president looks forward to his visit in north carolina, a. b, we're certainly not looking at a visit designed to highlight the need to continue the progress we've made with advanced manufacturing as an issue of electoral politics. the fact is, thanks to the grit and determination of the american people, thanks to the quality of the american work force, and thanks to the

policies pursued by this administration, we have seen a rebound in manufacturing in the united states. many people and experts viewed the decline in manufacturing in this country that we had experienced over the number of years to be something that was -- to be something that was irreversible. but this nation has proved and the american people have proved otherwise. and the fact is we've created more than 500,000 new manufacturing jobs and the more of them that are created in the advanced manufacturing space, the more high paying those jobs are, the more those jobs bring economic security and stability to middle class families across the country. so that's what the president wants to highlight tomorrow. >> i know you're saying that her office has addressed this, that -- but it's kind of the -- i think people take that as a congressional equivalent of, i can't go, i'm washing my hair. >> you think voting on potentially -- >> i don't -- >> budget resolutions or -- >> i think there's a way --

>> extending unemployment insurance. i think most senators would disagree with that. >> i think there's a way to read the needle and try to maybe fit those things in. and she said that she welcomes campaigning with the president, but it doesn't seem that she jumped at this opportunity. >> this isn't a campaign event. i understand having been there the urgent -- >> this is a campaign year -- >> story 10 months out and an election story. i promise you this is not one. >> my question is, is the president worried that he is a drag at this point in a time are we needs to maintain the senate so that he can push -- >> all i can tell you is the president is traveling to north carolina tomorrow. >> coming back to iran, the president's been very clear, you've been very clear, have there have been multiple veto threats, you've said over and over again that this sanctions bill would derail these talks. why then are so many democrats willing to defy the president on this?

>> i would say that the president shares with every member of congress who has made this issue one of special attention and focus the same commitment to depriving iran from acquiring a nuclear weapon. the same commitment to building a comprehensive and effective sanctions regime, which includes sanctions leveled by the united states. through legislation passed by congress. we have worked very closely with congress and congress has been an excellent partner in that effort. the senators who have been discussing action in the current time period have been leaders thon issue. so we have -- leaders on this issue. so we have shared their objectives and commitment. >> you've been crystal clear on that point but ever since the white house issued that first

veto threat, and said it in exactly those terms, we've had more democratic co-sponsors of this bill. so i'm just wondering, this is a top -- correct me if i'm wrong -- this is a top foreign policy priority for the president, if not the first this year. and yet you've had several top democrats simply say, no way. we're going ahead anyway. >> i think that you also have -- >> why don't you give the white house the benefit of the doubt? >> there have been a number of white house senators coming out strongly today urging this bill not to be voted on, urging this bill not to -- senators, their colleagues, not to support this legislation now, precisely for the reasons that the president has said. so you'll have to interview and talk with each individual member to learn from them their reasoning behind their actions here and what they support. our point is that we actually

share the same views on these matters with those who have been pushing further sanctions. we simply think, as a matter of maximizing the potential for resolving this conflict with iran peacefully, congress should not pass legislation that introduces these sanctions at this time. now is not time to do that. there may be the time and if and when that time arises congress can be most effective by holding in advance new sanctions, until then. so we will work with congress if that time does arrive. i don't think anyone doubts, given the shared views on this, the commitment that congress has demonstrated, the support for depriving iran of obtaining a nuclear weapon, the support for the security of our allies in the region, that if iran were to fail to meet its commitments, if

it were to violate the terms of the agreement, the joint plan of action, or if it were to scuttle or walk away from the negotiations over a comprehensive resolution, congress could and would act very quickly to oppose new sanctions and even better, given that that would have been triggered by iranian behavior, our partners around the world would be much more likely to follow suit. and building that international consensus has been -- has been what allowed us to this point make this sanctions regime so effective. because unilateral sanctions imposed by the united states can only achieve so much as you know. and it has been the broad international consensus that has been constructed here with the leadership of the united states, that has made this sanctions regime so effective, having the impact that it's had on the iranian economy, on the views of

the iranian people, which in turn have led to the moment where iran decided that they ought to get serious, apparently, about negotiating with the p-5-plus-1 over the disposition of its nuclear program. >> -- the syrian opposition, aid to them if they don't show up at geneva two, can you verify this? and also, what are the chances of an incentive like releasing political prisoners or ceases fire could be achieved? >> i would simply say that we expect the syrian opposition to come to geneva and we expect they will. we recognize that there are current divisions among the opposition and that the path to geneva is a difficult one. but we expect that members of the opposition will attend. we are focused on moving the parties to the geneva two conference. because there is no military solution to the crisis in syria,

as we've said. a negotiated political transition is the best opportunity to end the violence and the suffering of the syrian people and to begin a process of ending the conflict through the full implementation of the geneva communique. in paris this weekend, secretary kerry engaged in an intensive round of diplomacy regarding syria, including meeting with the ministers of the london 11, syrian opposition coalition president, and russian foreign minister and joint special representative rahimmy. we continue to look forward toward -- brahimi. move forward d to with the geneva conference. we are absolutely confident that there is no way to resthove crisis except through -- to resolve this crisis except through a political negotiated resolution. >> would you resume the aid even if they don't show up in geneva? >> i think you're mistaking or you're misstating our position. we didn't cut off all aid.

we cut off -- we halted some aid because of the need to verify the security of the aid that was delivered. i think i announced earlier this week that we were resuming some of the aid that we'd been providing and that we remain commitmented to the s.m.c. as well as to the broad syrian opposition, as well as through our humanitarian aid which has continued to flow. to the syrian people who have suffered so much because of president assad. >> i'm talking about something else, regardless, in egypt -- you said we cut off aid and we haven't. >> i said, are you soliciting to cut off aid if they don't show up in geneva two? >> that is not my understanding, no. >> with egypt, do you feel that -- victory -- [inaudible] giving you a waiver regarding

the -- [inaudible] >> what i can tell you is that , the omnibus legislation congress has laid down parameters and conditions for continuation of assistance to egypt and pending passage of the bill, it has not yet passed, we will determine whether those conditions are being met. our view is that this does not imply any immediate changes with regard to our october 9 assistance decisions which i know you recall. so we will evaluate it upon passage, but our view is that it doesn't imply any immediate changes. >> a couple of questions. i want to start with the future pay pal visit. has the president been influenced and if so how and why by the pope and some of his initiatives, particularly when it comes to poverty, etc.?

>> the president i believe in s remarks late last year heerred to the pope and what has said and what he's doing about the problem of inequality, about the problem of economic mobility around the world. so i think that you can take from that that the president is learnly aware of and paying attention -- is certainly aware of and paying attention to the work being done by the pope and the vatican. beyond that, with regard to a meeting the president is looking forward to, i just don't have any more details about when that what lp -- when that will happen or where. >> as you talk about inequality and poverty and things of that nature, can you give us the mindset as we're going into january 28, the mindset around this white house, what is the state of the union as you're talking about ex tebbedsing unemployment -- extending

unemployment insurance, bringing more people into the middle class, what is the mindset of what the state of the union should be when the president says -- >> that the american people and our economy have come a long way from the depths of the worst recession since the great depression. we've come a long way from the time when we were hemorrhaging jobs at 800,000 jobs per month, when the economy was shrinking at something like 7% annualized in a given quarter, to a situation where we've been steadily creating jobs. 8.2 million if i'm not mistaken private sector jobs where we have been growing steadily. but we have much more work to do. we are not where we need to be. and that is why the president is committed to working with everyone in congress and outside of congress who shares his interest in advancing the country economically, in addressing the need for creating more advanced manufacturing jobs, the need for providing greater educational

opportunities to our children. the need to make work pay, which is what raise the minimum wage would do, the need to increase our investments in our infrastructure, creating jobs now and creating the potential for economic growth later. and i think you heard the president mention at the top of the cabinet meeting today that he wants action this year. two e believes that he has unique powers as president. the power of the pen and the power of the telephone. to try to instigate action. he can sign bills, he can sign executive orders and he can get on the phone as president of the united states with unique abilities to rally support ehind ideas that can promote growth, promote education reform, promote job creation. so, that's what he's going to do. and we're going to do it every day of the year with the aim of

continueing to improve the state of the union and improving it for the middle class and for those americans who are working hard every day, playing by the rules and trying to save for their retirement, trying to pay for college and trying to get by. and we're trying to make it a little easier for them. >> [inaudible] >> i don't have any updates on outh sudan at this time. should we sing happy birthday or not? from all of us, happy birthday and also just, having somebody with the amount of experience you've had around here, i think it's a help to all of your colleagues, it's a help to us and we're glad you're here. [applause]

>> you're very gracious. now i have a question. [laughter] the president expressed willingness today to use his powers to create by executive action an order, indicate that he doesn't believe that he'll be able to work with this congress? >> no, it indicates that he will use every opportunity available to him to move the ball down the field with congress and wherever there's an opportunity to do that he will seize it. but he will not limit himself, because he certainly doesn't think the american people would want him to limit himself, just to what he can do legislatively with congress. because as president there is a lot more he can do. and he's democrat traited -- demonstrated that throughout his term in office and he will continue to do that with renewed vigor this year because there is much to be done and there is great opportunity to get it done using every means available to

him. >> what kinds of executive actions, orders would he take? what can he do that he can't accomplish with the help of congress? >> i think you've seen over the course of his presidency actions that he's taken through his executive authority to accomplish remarkable things, including the fuel efficiency standards that alone will achieve more to reduce carbon pollution in this country than almost any legislative initiative you could imagine passing through congress. it's not an either/or proposition. it's a both/and proposition. so i won't get ahead of him in talking about what other actions he might be able to take using his executive authority, and i wouldn't see it even narrowly through that prison much alone in terms of executive orders and a piece of paper the president can sign to create action. part of the authority the president refers to today is authority related to the influence of the office, -- office, to the capacity of a president to rally people around

a cause, create public-private partnerships when it comes to iring veterans or investing in education and communities so that you have public sector and private sector partnerships to make sure that folks, young people in those cities and towns and communities are getting the skills they need for the jobs available in their communities, jobs available at private sector businesses. those are just a couple of examples of the kinds of things that we can do that are beyond legislation and beyond even executive orders. >> first, iran. is it still the administration's position that iran should not enjoy a right to enrich uranium? >> that has never been what we've said. it's not enshrined in the agreement. in fact it's explicitly stated otherwise. i think that's important to

note. >> so, during these negotiations, they can enrich? >> i would point you to the agreement and what commilt commitments iran makes in terms of the levels of enrichment they're allowed to meet. but the assertion, often misstated in various quarters, that the agreement recognizes a quote-unquote right to enrich is false. >> on the deal in general, you said several times earlier that the importance of this deal is that it's verifiable and it's transparent. in the interest of transparency, why didn't the state department this weekend, why didn't you yesterday and today as you discussed this talk about what's now reported to be a secret signing agreement, a 30-page secret annex dealing with this agreement that the iranian side has revealed? is that true? >> no. and it's another indication of reporting that's not accurate. there is no secret agreement. the documentation associates with the implementation arrangements tracks completely

with what we have described, which are technical plans submitted to the iaea, the technical understandings clarify how the provisions of the joint plan of action, the publicly released joint plan of action, will be implemented and verified and the timing of implementation of its provisions. now, i remind you, this is not solely a u.s. process. it's not an agreement negotiated solely between the united states and iran. these are understandings that were reached with our p-5-plus-1 partners, the european union, the iaea, and iran. and we will make the text available to the congress and the public but we must work with the parties on when and in what format the information will be released and we hope to do that soon. >> so why would the iranian side be out there suggesting there's a side agreement? >> again, what iranian leaders say for their domestic audience purposes is far less meaningful than what they do. and what the agreements commit

them to. so i would point you to that and point you to the fact that we will be making the text available both to congress and the public. >> ok. two other quick things on ben gazzy. there were newly declassified documents released by republicans on the hill yesterday, they show that in private testimony to a house panel, some of the president's top military advisors at the time, general hamm, general dempsey and others, believed within minutes of the attack in benghazi that it was an attack, probably a terror attack, and yet you know, week of talked about this before, for many days after the president, but you specifically at that podium, said we did not know whether it was a terror attack. why if these military leaders testified to capitol hill that they knew it was an attack, almost immediately, why did you -- >> two things. first of all, of course it was an attack. the facility was attacked. there was never any doubt about -- come on, ed. i know there's a desire here -- >> that's what you said. >> this is just not factual. of course it was an attack. it was an attack that led to the deaths of four americans.

and there has been a significant amount of investigation to find out what went wrong when it came to security and to recommend steps that should be taken and which we are taking to do everything we can to ensure it doesn't happen again. so, i think there has been a lot of reporting on this and there has been a lot of inaccurate reporting on it, generally speaking, not just this particular case of house republicans selectively releasing more testimony to outlets so they can use it for public purposes. but the idea that we were somehow saying it wasn't an attack, i mean, you know, the sky's blue, you know, up is not down, down is not up. of course it was an attack. >> and they also explored this house panel. cement 10, 2012, conference call, the president had with military and security officials about the 9/11 anniversary of 2012. you remember, you've talked

about it before, you put out a press release at the time about the force posture and how this administration was making sure that you were prepared around the world for the anniversary. in his testimony general dempsey privately told the house panel that, a, libya did not come up on that conference call with the president and, b, that after the call there was not a single directive issued by any military leaders to change our force posture, libya or anywhere around the world. in that press release where you said that the president had had this call, this meeting, and was preparing the posture, was that an exaggeration when there were no military directives after changings to posture in any way? >> our military and other services devoted to our national security don't wait until september 10 to prepare for contingencies on an anniversary like september 11 of any year. secondly, the -- i don't know specifically whether libya or other areas of the world were discussed, what was the case, as

i think you remember, is that there was a lot of unrest in the region and that was certainly an issue of concern in terms of the security of our embassies and our american personnel around the world. but -- and again, i'm not really sure what -- you can address questions about force posture to the department of defense, if the suggestion is that there was not adequate security to protect the lives of four americans in benghazi, libya, i think that's obvious. as we have made clear. and that should not have been the case, that's why we have had the investigations we've had, that's why the state department and others have acted on the many positive recommendations of the accountability review board. and why we have taken the steps that we've taken to make sure that we're doing everything we can to protect americans, our civilian americans serving abroad, often in very difficult

and dangerous circumstances. >> want to get a sense if the president was updated about the shooting that took place in roswell, new mexico, a 14-year-old boy and a 13-year-old girl in critical condition, and/or the shooting that took place late yesterday i think in florida at a movie theater where a man was apparently shot for texting. >> i will have to take the question about the shooting from yesterday. i can tell you that the white house is in close touch with our federal partners, including the f.b.i., with regards to the shooting in roswell. the new mexico state police is onscene so i'd every you to them for any -- i'd refer to you them for any specifics about the shooting. our understanding is that this is not an active shooter situation. the president's team is monitoring the situation and is in close touch with our federal partners. for more information about some of the details you mentioned, with regards to this shooting, i'd refer you to the new mexico state police. >> the president punctuated his

last state of the union address with that emotional refrain, he said, they deserve a vote, naming off the cities that had now become synonymous with mass violence, mass gun violence. the president got that vote, it failed. now what? what does the white house do now as we visit in some ways the one-year anniversary of that emotional refrain? >> i think this goes a little bit to the point i was making earlier about using every resource available to him to advance an agenda that he believes is in the interest of the american people. and you've seen action that he has taken, executive action that he's taken that was part of the commitment he made after the task force delivered its recommendations and we have acted on every one of those executive actions and he will continue to take steps. >> [inaudible] >> i don't want to review everything that we will do or can do. we will continue to urge action

by congress. but there is no question that congress, the senate made a decision against the will of the overwhelming majority of the american people when it failed to pass legislation that would have simply expanded our background check system, legislation that would in no way infringed upon the second amendment rights of the american people. but that doesn't mean we stand still. we move forward, we look where we can take steps and i think there was not long ago, i know there was, action taken with regards to mental health which is an important aspect of this problem, executive action, and we'll continue to look for ways to advance an agenda that will help the safety of the united states, help our children in particular, and their safety, without in any way infringing upon the second amendment rights of the american people. >> very simply, are you acknowledging following up on some of the questions from the row before me, the givet is you've already completed all those executive actions that you've committed to

successfully. so the question is, is this an example where after those executive actions are completed, if congress doesn't act, at some point your handles are tied a -- tied and there's no further you can go? >> no. i think we're always looking for ways and will continue to look for ways that we can move forward on this issue and many others. the fact that we already have taken actions certainly doesn't mean there aren't more actions can't usee or that we the pen or the phone to try to rally support behind actions in communities or states when it comes to this issue. and so many other issues. i don't think the fact that we've actually taken action suggests we can't take more. >> tomorrow there's another deadline. it's the last day to sign up for coverage with the affordable care act beginning february 1. yesterday we got a look at the numbers through the end of 2013 in terms of enrollments. obviously the mix remains to be seen, what it will look like by the end of march. but i want to get a sense from

you about what the real concerns are right now, given the president's recent visit with young people, what the real concerns are about getting to the numbers that you need to achieve in time for that deadline? >> i think as you saw yesterday, in the data that was released by c.m.s., an enormous amount of progress made, especially in december, in terms of a sharp surge in enrollments overall and an even sharper surge in the enrollment of young americans under 35. we are working very aggressively with all stakeholders to ensure that that progress continues. we got off to a very shaky start. and that was on us and it's on us to make up for the deficit that we created for ourselves. but nobody contests anymore whether or not there is a huge appetite for this product. nobody contests anymore whether

or not americans are enrolling and signing up for health care through the exchanges at a very healthy clip. and what i think we saw in the data yesterday is something that reflects very much the experience that massachusetts had, specifically with regards to young adults. and young people overall. in massachusetts, over the first three months of enrollment, when they had the closest thing to the affordable care act, you saw percentages that were 15%, 20% and 23% in the first three months. yesterday we -- c.m.s. announced that we were in the 24% range and 30% if you take all young americans under 35. when you talk about actuarial tables, that accounts. going from zero to 34. it's also, i think for anybody

who has been young, and i assume that includes everybody, a statement of the obvious that young people are going to be by and large late to the party when it comes to signing up. when you're talking about young people who are not insured, as opposed to the population of people who have purchased insurance on the individual market in the past, who are middle aged, who may have health conditions and they need insurance, they've had insurance, or they need insurance and haven't had insurance, they are much more likely to sign up early. and that's reflected in the data. what we saw in massachusetts, what we've seen in every other comparable past experience is that young people will sign up late and in large numbers and that's what we expect, it's what we saw for the january 1 deadline which for a lot of young people wasn't even the motivating deadline. the motivating deadline will be march 31. so we're confident that come march 31 we will have, as you stated, a different demographic

picture. but the demographic picture we have today is certainly solid evidence that we're making a lot of progress. >> i want to talk to you about the omnibus bill agreement reached yesterday. it's got some new requirements for the national security agency. they'll be required to turn over data about the collection of bulk phone records, including how many americans have had calls intercepted by the agency. how would you respond? >> i'm not aware of that item in the omnibus. 'll have to take the question. >> congressman owens said he's not going to run for e-election, just the latest of -- he's just announced he's not running for re-election. he's the latest of many moderates running for the exit. what does that say about the state of wall street, that so

many moderates feel unwelcome? >> well, i don't write political analysis anymore. so i won't deliver the piece i might have written verbally from the podium. i'll simpley -- -- i'll simply say that the american people who send elected -- [captioning performed by national captioning institute] [captions copyright national cable satellite corp. 2014] >> you can find this on our video library at c-span.org. taking you live back to the house for a couple of votes as they wrap up leggetsive work this afternoon. yeas and nays, the yeas and nays. the first electronic vote will be conducted as a 15-minute vote. remaining electronic votes will be conducted as a five-minute vote. the unfinished business is the vote on the motion of the gentleman from texas, mr. farenthold, to suspend the rules and pass h.r. 2860, on which the yeas and nays are ordered. the clerk will report the title of the bill. the clerk: union calendar bill 191, h.r. 2860, a

to amend title 5, united states code, to provide that the inspector general of the office of personnel management may use amounts in the revolving fund of the office to fund audits, investigations, and oversight activities, and for other . rposes 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.]

please stand by.

the speaker pro tempore: on this vote, the yeas are 418, the nays are zero. 2/3 being in the affirmative, the rules are suspended and the bill is passed and the motion to reconsider is laid on the table. the unfinished business is vote on the motion of the the gentleman from texas, to suspend the rules and pass h.r. 1233 as amended on which the yeas and nays are ordered. the clerk will report the title of the bill. the clerk: h.r. 1233, a bill to amend title 44, united states code, known as the presidential records anth, to establish procedures for the consideration of claims of constitutionality-based privilege against the disclosure of presidential records and for other purposes. the speaker pro tempore: the question is, will the house suspend the rules and pass the

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

the speaker pro tempore: on this vote the yeas are without objection the motion to reconsider is laid on the table. the chair lays before the house n enrolled bill. the clerk: senate 230, an act to authorize the peace corps foundation to establish a commemorative memorial in the district of columbia for its environs and for other purposes.

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

the speaker pro tempore: will members please clear the well, clear the aisles, take your business off the floor.

the speaker pro tempore: for what purpose does the gentleman from oklahoma seek recognition? mr. cole: mr. speaker, i send to the desk a privileged of report from the committee on rules for filing under the rules. the speaker pro tempore: the clerk will report the title. the clerk: report to accompany house resolution 458, resolution providing for consideration of the senate amendments to the bill h.r.

3547, to extend the application of certain states launched liability provisions through 014, providing for proceedings during the period from january 17, 2014, through january 24, 2014, and for other purposes. the speaker pro tempore: referred to the house calendar and ordered printed. the chair will entertain requests for one-minute peeches. for what purpose does the gentleman from pennsylvania seek recognition? mr. thompson: mr. speaker, i request unanimous consent to address the house for one minute and to revise and extend. the speaker pro tempore: without objection, the gentleman is recognized for one minute. mr. thompson: mr. speaker, the house is not in order.

the speaker pro tempore: the entleman is correct. the gentleman will proceed. mr. thompson: thank you, mr. speaker. mr. speaker, as a father of a purple heart wounded warrior and father-in-law of a recently discharged soldier, my promise is to serve and advocate for those who serve this country. our troops have earned our support, not just during their service, but after they return to civilian life. now, i'm proud to support the colas for medically retired armed forces personnel and survivors. particularly doing away with the 1% reduction as has been put in place. this will be considered in the house later this week under the consolidated appropriations act for fiscal year 2014. also included in this legislation is a 1% pay raise for our troops, as well as

funding and guidance for the department of defense, the support of war fighters overseas and our military and humanitarian missions around the globe. our military must remain strong to enforce the peace, and the soldiers, airmen, sailors and marines that make this happen must always be the best trained and equipped force in the world. mr. speaker, let's continue to serve those who serve in uniform. our american heroes deserve as much. nd i yield back. the speaker pro tempore: the ouse will be in order. for what purpose does the gentlewoman from texas seek recognition? ms. jackson lee: 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: thank you, mr.

speaker. somewhere in america a young child will not be able to see their immigrant parents come home this evening. in every state in the union, there are individuals who are undocumented that simply want an opportunity to work and dream here in america. i'm in the mids of a one-day -- myths of a one-day -- midst of pass day fast so we can comprehensible immigration reform. houstonians committed to fasting until this bill, comprehensive immigration reform, will pass. border security, access to citizenship, earned access to citizenship, elements of paying fines, elements of doing charitable work, ensuring that the arts and businesses come together and have the resources and talent that they need and

creating jobs. in texas, there are 400,000 immigrants with some billion-plus dollars. removing that would have a terrible impact on the economy. passing comprehensive immigration reform is not only economically sound, but it is a humane, dignified thing to do. this congress must come together, republicans and democrats, and give dignity to those, soldiers and others who simply want an opportunity to serve and be part of the american dream. i yield back. . the speaker pro tempore: for what purpose does the gentleman from texas seek recognition? >> 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. poe: mr. speaker, a large number of spanish-speaking americans live in my congressional district and brought to my attention the new

two-month-late obamaenrollment web site and here it is right here on the web site. in english that translates the caution of health.gov. sounds like a warning. only the government could be so incompetent to get the title of the web site wrong. this site is riddled with embarrassing computerized english-to-spanish. some things are in spanish and some things are in english. this is insulating to americans who speak only spanish. the web site does tell the truth. people should be cautious about government health care. the name of the web site should be changed to cautionobamacare. it is hard enough to sign up if the government decides to have a spanish-speaking web site, you would think that the government

would have a spanish web site inaccurate spanish. and that's just the way it is. i yield back. the speaker pro tempore: for what purpose does the gentleman from florida seek recognition? >> i ask unanimous consent to address the house for one minute. the speaker pro tempore: without objection. the gentleman is recognized for one minute. >> mr. speaker, i rise today to recognize tax identity theft awareness week. and i urge my colleagues to join me in working to reduce this invasive crime. floridians suffer from the highest rates of identity theft in the country. over 70,000 people filing complaints of identity theft last year. whether they shop in neighborhood mom and pop stores or large retailers, americans deserve to buy what they need without fear of having giving

away private information or being compromised. that's why i introduced the safe i.d. act, in order to address the growing problem of identity theft and tax fraud. i urge my colleagues to join me in supporting this bill and other commonsense efforts to stop this heinous crime. i return the balance of my time. the speaker pro tempore: for what purpose does the gentleman from illinois seek recognition? >> i ask unanimous consent to address the house for one minute and revise and extend. the speaker pro tempore: without objection. the gentleman is recognized for one minute. >> mr. speaker, i rise today to honor the career of mr. donald lehman and his contributions to our scientific community. by developing evaluation processes for the department of energy's office of science, he has had a profound impact on many large scientific

construction projects, helping to complete them on time and on budget. his processes have been recognized and copied worldwide as a best practice for managing large and complex scientific construction projects. during over 30 years of federal service, until his retirement on january 3, 2014, his dedicated to excellence and pro-active approach had many scientific facilities to successful operation. improving the management culture of highly complex projects has made a tremendous impact on the vitality, perception and future of the office of science programs. mr. speaker, i ask my colleagues to join me in honoring mr. donald lehman for his outstanding leadership and contributions to our nation's scientific programs. thank you and i yield back. the speaker pro tempore: the chair lays before the house the following personal requests.

the clerk: leaves of absence requested for mr. culberson of texas for today. the speaker pro tempore: without objection. the request is granted. under the speaker's announced policy of january 3, 2013, the gentleman from california, mr. garamendi, is recognized for 60 minutes as the designee of the minority leader. mr. garamendi: it's good to be back on the floor once again as we have most every week to talk about jobs in america, to talk about the unemployed, to talk about those who are less fortunate and those who need a strong federal program to create jobs. i often start with this, because

t's kind of the compass, the touchstone of what i like to think what we ought to be doing. this is from franklin roosevelt, and this is actually on one of the marble slabs at his memorial here in washington, d.c. the test of our progress is not whether we add more to the abundance of those who have much, it is whether we provide too h for those who have little. all across america today, there are far too many that have too little. uple of weeks ago, i did a jobs fair in fairfield, california. it was about 38 degrees outside that day and we had just under

1,000 people come to that jobs fair. there were about 50 employers. and maybe 50, 70 people got jobs. this is a picture of the men and women that were lined up waiting to get in to have a very quick interview with one of those or more of those 50 potential employers. i used this photo before on the floor to point out the need for a jobs program here in america. the president, two years ago in his state of the union, put forth a proposal that had several elements and we will probably cover some of those today, but it has not been enacted. the republican leadership in this house has refused to pass even one of those jobs programs. there was infrastructure, education, re-education. there were programs to provide for the opportunity for men and women to get jobs here in the united states.

but i was looking at this photo just today, and i said i'm going to use this again, because in this photo, approximately half of the people lined up, 1,000, just under 1,000, were women. it caused me to think about another program that the democratic minority here in the house has been working on for some time. and that's the issue of women in the american economy. i know that in my own district, there's this issue of equal pay for equal work. a woman doing stenographer work next to a man would be paid 85 cents while the man is paid $1 .00. 85 cents while the man has the .00.skill set would get $1

that is wrong. many of the women that are searching for work here are going to be finding minimum-wage jobs. california's different. we have already passed a minimum wage in california. in another year and a half will be $10-plus a little. ut the national is still at $7 -plus, way, way under someone working 40 hours a week, 52 weeks a year could possibly support a family. the minimum wage is an issue for men and women. but more so for women than for men. there are a lot of issues that we need to consider as we talk about jobs, employment, increasing the employment opportunities in the united states for these people, men and women, and particularly women, that are lined up wanting to get a job.

joining me tonight is an extraordinary group of people who have been working on this issue of women in jobs, employment, equal employment opportunities, day care, family care programs. so i would like to start with jan schakowsky who has been one of the leaders, often seen on television speaking to this issue and the issue of opportunity in america. jan, would you start us off in talking about women and jobs. ms. schakowsky: thank you for coming to the floor and talking about the economy. it really is the economy for most americans who feel a sense of growing insecurity. wages haven't gone up for decades. but the leader, our leader, nancy pelosi, of our leadership,

has launched a campaign on behalf of women in america, saying when women win, america wins. and highlighting the issues that really affect women day-to-day, calling for things like affordable child care, an increase in the minimum wage, paid leave, which it turns out is a major priority of women. i see you have got a sign there -- mr. garamendi: would you like to have it? ms. schakowsky: why don't we turn our attention to that sign, ending the gender pay gap which is 77 cents to the dollar that men earned. paid sick leave, permanent child tax credits, improved diagnosis and care for alzheimer's patients and on and on. but we have been bolstered by an incredible new effort that has

turned into a remarkable book called "the schriver report," and it's a study by her and the center for american progress, "a women's nation pushes back from the brink." and the idea here is to give voice to women. it has all the facts and figures that one would want but has the stories, the actual voice of women, who feel so pressured by this economy, but also feel that their voices aren't being heard. it's an important book and i wanted to read some of these wow facts that are there that everyone should keep in mind about the status of women in our economy. one in three women in america is living in poverty or teatering

on its brink, one in three. that's 42 million women plus the children who depend on them. second bullet, the american family has changed today. one in five families today has one out of five have working mom and dad. many are struggling to give care giving and bread winning. the average woman continues to be paid 77 cents for every dollar. the average african-american women, 64 cents, averagela tina, 55 cents. closing the wage gap between men and women, listen to this, would cut the poverty rate in half for working women and their families and would add nearly half a trillion dollars to the national economy. five, women are nearly

two-thirds of minimum wage workers and a vast majority of these workers receive no paid sick days, not one. and when they did a survey of what's the number one thing that you want. women said, sick days. for themselves to go home and take care of their children. six, more than half of the babies born to the women under age of 30 are born to unmarried mothers, most of them white. young people believe that government should adapt to the reality of single-parent families and use its resources to help children and mothers succeed regardless of family status. so the american people, 2/3 say, government does, in fact, have a role. eight, 96% of single mothers say paid leave is a workplace policy

that would help them the most and nearly 80% of americans say the government should expand access to quality affordable child care. the worries that mothers have. nine, women regret not making education a bigger priority. and 10, the trauma and chronic stress of poverty are toxic to children, making them two and a half times more likely to suffer as adults from copd, hepatitis and depression. so actually, poverty is dangerous to the health of children as they grow into adulthood in very dramatic and particular ways. . so when we think about poverty in america, when we think about extending unoy