get when you serve. host: the house is about to come into session. if you want to read this report, go to c-span.org. [captioning performed by national captioning institute] [captions copyright national cable satellite corp. 2014] the speaker pro tempore: the house will be in order. the chair lays before the house a communication from the speaker. the clerk: the speaker's room, washington, d.c., january 16, 2014. i hereby appoint the honorable kevin yoder to act as speaker pro tempore on this day. signed, john a. boehner, speaker of the house of representatives. the speaker pro tempore: the prayer will be offered by our chaplain, father conroy.

chaplain conroy: let us 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 have faced difficult decisions in difficult times but have labored hard to forge a significant compromise. as has been the testimony of history, difficult losses have been felt while possibilities for a more positive future have been created. bless our nation, o god, that this legislation has difficult as has been to work will prove to be beneficial to us and our fellow citizens will know that all of us are responsible for creating a stronger community as a nation. bless all who have labored so hard in these past days and weeks, 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 approved. the pledge of allegiance will be led by the gentleman from washington, mr. kilmer. mr. kilmer: 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 up to five requests for one-minute speeches on each side of the aisle. for what purpose does the gentlelady from west virginia eek recognition? without objection, the gentlelady from west virginia is recognized for one minute. >> thank you. mr. speaker, for a week now residents across the valley have been told to not use their tap purposes for any purposes. businesses and schools have been closed for over a week and

while things are returning to rmal for some residents, thousands are not able to use it due to a chemical leak in the elk river which is upstream from our water system. mrs. capito: for more than two decades, no federal agency looked at this because freedom industries did not reportedly -- did not report the spill. we must examine our existing laws at all levels of government and find the gaps that allowed to spill to occur. at into request, the house transportation and infrastructure committee will hold a hearing in charleston to examine the causes of the spill. the response and the actions that should be taken. i want to thank the west virginia national guard, the west virginia department of homeland security, fema, first responders and many, many west virginians and volunteers across the state along with our neighbors in neighboring

states. but west virginians were just amazing. we joined together to meet this challenge and have exemplified once again that mountaineer spirit which we are very well-known for. i yield back. the speaker pro tempore: the gentlelady's time has expired. for what purpose does the gentleman from california seek recognition? >> i seek unanimous consent to address the house for one minute and to revise and extend my remarks. the speaker pro tempore: without objection, the gentleman from california is recognized for one minute. >> mr. speaker, the evidence for climate change is overwhelming, be it superstorms, megadroughts, migration of biological systems, the disappearance of historical glaziers, ocean acidification or the melting of the polar ice cap, the potential for catastrophic change grows every year. mr. mcnerney: the house republicans push legislation that exacerbates climate change. last year, the republicans reduced funding for the clean energy technologies interfered with r&d at the department of energy and prevented the peaverplet from addressing carbon emissions.

our economy is expected to grow this year and with that growth carbon emissions will rise. the united states is a leader in technology and innovation, we should use this leadership as an opportunity to foster cooperation between public and private interests, to work together to provide low cost clean energy and instead it's been used by the house republicans to bludgeon the e.p.a. and to roll back the environmental gains over the past half century. mr. speaker, i yield back. the speaker pro tempore: the gentleman yields back. for what purpose does the gentleman from washington seek recognition? >> mr. speaker, i request unanimous consent to address the house for one minute. the speaker pro tempore: without objection, the gentleman from washington is recognized for one minute. >> thank you, mr. speaker. last week hottie, one testified in the science committee that by 2020 there will be 100,000 in computer science jobs

america. mr. kilmer: and women and the minority are underrepresented in these growing fields. i have 2,000 reasons. there are 24,000 open computing jobs in my state right now. i've got two little girls who will be entering into a work force that will rely on skills in computing. right now only 17 states accept computer science as a core math or science credit. that's why i support the computer science education act, to fix this. according to an article in "education week," in this last year in 11 states not a single african-american student took the a.p. computer science course. not a single latino student in eight states, not a single female student in two states. if we're going to compete and ensure all students can make it in america, we got to close the participation gap and provide these opportunities in every state. we've got to step it up. thank you, mr. speaker. i yield back. the speaker pro tempore: the gentleman's time has expired.

for what purpose does the gentleman from florida seek recognition? >> i rise to address the house for one minute and to revise and extend my remarks. the speaker pro tempore: without objection, the gentleman from florida is recognized for one minute. >> mr. speaker, today i rise to commemorate the 65th anniversary of richmond heights, a community that from its very beginning fostered inclusion and respect. mr. garcia: i recently had the opportunity to read a recent book "miami's richmond heights," which was published by patricia harper garrett and her daughter, jessica garrett, good friends. it chronicles the story of a community that was set up by captain frank martin, a white pan am pilot who bought the land in 1949 knowing that a lot of world war ii veterans, african-american world war ii veterans would be returning, armed with the g.i. bill but unable to purchase homes. he created this opportunity based on racial equality and inclusion. it is one of the great

communities of my district. the african-american leadership that it inspired folks like cannon theodore gibson, the reverend john ferguson who created the second baptist church and that leadership has passed onto others in richmond heights where today we have senator dwight bullard and reverend alfonso jackson. mr. speaker, it's with great pride that i commemorate the 65th anniversary of richmond heights and patricia garrett's fantastic book. 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 arizona seek recognition? >> mr. speaker, i ask unanimous consent to address the house for one minute. the speaker pro tempore: without objection, the gentleman from arizona is recognized for one minute. mr. barber: mr. speaker, on december 28, 1.3 million americans lost their unemployment insurance because congress failed to act. these families are struggling to put food on the table, to

pay their bills, to heat their homes, and we have a responsibility to assist them in their time of need. and as they continue to find work, look for work. but instead congress will go home today without taking action, and this is just outrageous. every week the congress ignores its responsibilities to our citizens. 72,000 more americans lose their unemployment insurance, crucial assistance which not only supports them but also our economy. that is why i call on leadership to keep the house in session and to extend unemployment insurance now. we should stay here and do our job for we are representing the people of america and those who we have a duty to serve. let us stay here and make sure that americans know that we have their back, that we're going to take care of them in their desperate time of need. i urge the house to stay in session and pass an extension

to the unemployment insurance program. i yield back. the speaker pro tempore: the gentleman's time has expired. for what purpose does the gentleman from new york seek recognition? >> i ask unanimous consent to address the house for one minute and to revise and extend my remarks. the speaker pro tempore: without objection, the gentleman from new york is recognized for one minute. >> thank you, mr. speaker. i've learned a lot in my first year in congress, but i could serve here a lifetime and never understand how some members can be so callous and shortsighted that they will cut off a lifeline. these new yorkers are hardworking people like steven rom sugarlow and wrote that he needs unemployment insurance to stay in his house. another where her and her husband need insurance just to make ends meet. like jeannine who lost her job to outsourcing but still has to take care of her daughter. like carroll in duchess county, who may not be able to take care of her disabled husband without this assistance.

like i think rid who fought for her country in war and now has to worry about trying to put food on the table for her children. we must renew unemployment insurance for people like these now because every week that goes by there are 5,000 more people like steven and brenda and jeannine and carol and i think rid. these aren't statistics. they're hardworking americans and they need this congress to act and act now and i yield back. the speaker pro tempore: the gentleman's time has expired. for what purpose does the gentlelady from washington seek recognition? without objection, the gentlelady from washington is recognized for one minute. >> thank you, mr. speaker. today i rise to honor captain christopher stover of vancouver who was killed last week in england last week. a 4.0 student at evergreen high school, captain silver chose to serve his country and attended the united states air force academy. hh-60-g pilot of the

pave hawk helicopter and served tours in both iraq and afghanistan. ms. herrera beutler: chris had a passion for flying and he loved his job. a high school teacher said he was caring and nurturing and fostered a sense of community. not long ago he visited an elementary school in vancouver and thanked them for sending cards when he was overseas. he's survived by his wife, sarah, his parents, marabel and richmond. and our thoughts and prayers are with you. -- and richard. and our thoughts and prayers are with you. we cannot replace what you have lost. on behalf of a grateful country and a grateful nation, we thank you and we will always remember his service. there's an air force academy tradition for those graduates who pass away. it comes from the third verse of the air force song. i'll carry on that tradition by saying, captain stover, here's a toast. with that, i yield back, mr. speaker.

the speaker pro tempore: the gentlelady yields back. for what purpose does the gentleman from pennsylvania seek recognition? mr. pitts: mr. speaker, i ask unanimous consent that all members may have five legislative days to revise and xtend their remarks and to include extraneous material on h.r. 3362. the speaker pro tempore: without objection. pursuant to house resolution -- mr. pitts: pursuant to house resolution 455, i call up house resolution 3362 and ask for immediate consideration in the house. the speaker pro tempore: the clerk will report the title of the bill. the clerk: a bill to amend the patient protection and affordable care act to require transparency and the operation of american health benefit exchanges. the speaker pro tempore: pursuant to house resolution 455, the amendment printed in part b of house report 113-322 is adopted. the bill as amended is considered as read. the bill shall be debatable for 60 minutes with 40 minutes equally divide and controlled by the chair and ranking minority member of the

committee on energy and commerce. and 20 minutes equally divided and controlled by the chair and ranking minority member of the committee on ways and means. the gentleman from pennsylvania, mr. pitts, and the gentleman from new jersey, mr. pallone, each will control 20 minutes. the gentleman from michigan, mr. camp, and the gentleman from michigan, mr. levin, each will control 10 minutes. the chair now recognizes the gentleman from pennsylvania, mr. pitts. mr. pitts: mr. speaker, i yield myself such time as i may consume. the speaker pro tempore: the gentleman is recognized. mr. pitts: mr. speaker, i rise in support of h.r. 3362, the exchange information disclosure act. this bill is fundamentally about transparency. since healthcare.gov's disastrous launch, the public has received confusing and conflicting information about the site's functionality and the number of individuals actually able to purchase insurance through the website. states frying to enroll individuals in -- trying to enroll individuals in medicaid

and insurance companies trying to sign people up with private insurance have received incomplete and inaccurate applications from the website. h.r. 3362 would require the secretary of h.h.s. to provide a state-by-state breakdown of the number of unique website visits, the number of individuals who create an account, the number of individuals who select a qualified health plan, and the number of individuals who enrolled in a qualified health plan or medicaid. . the report must also describe the problems americans are encountering with the website and how h.h.s. is addressing them. the american people have a right accurate a and an

picture of the exchanges i urge -- exchanges. i urge my colleagues to support this bill. thank you, i reserve the balance of my time. the speaker pro tempore: the gentleman from pennsylvania reserves. the gentleman from new jersey is recognized. mr. pallone: thank you, mr. speaker. i -- i yield myself such time as i may consume. i'm afraid the bill before the house today, h.r. 3362, the exchange information disclosure act, is simply an effort by republicans to continue to impede the efforts of the administration to implement the affordable care act. transparency and other information is important for members of this body to receive, but this bill's requirement on the secretary go way above and beyond what i think is necessary and valuable information. this is just an attempt to pile on so many requirements on the administration that they are taking away from the true job of enrolling people in the law. enrollment numbers and visitors to the site are important pieces of information. we certainly all know accurate picture of the that. but this bill is simply unnecessary. there's already extensive disclosure of data on health insurance enrollments being provided. the administration releases enrollment data monthly just

like they do with medicare and the children's health insurance program and other federal programs. the monthly h.h.s. enrollment reports are excellent, detailed reports. in fact, the newest h.h.s. monthly enrollment report, which was issued this monday, which covers enrollments through december, has even more extensive data than the two earlier monthly reports. mr. speaker, in addition to providing data on total enrollments nationally and in state, the latest report includes both data for the nation and the state's first greater breakdown who select marketplace plans, second, age breakdown, i stress age breakdown on those who selected marketplace plans. financial assistance status of those who selected the plans, and lastly a breakdown of the coverage level or medal level of the plans people have selected. so these numbers show there is a very strong demand for the quality, affordable coverage options now available to americans because of the affordable care act. more than six million americans

have now either signed up for a private health insurance plan or for medicaid, including nearly the 2.2 million who signed up for private insurance through the marketplace. nearly 1.8 million of these consumers signed up for private plans in december, and that's nearly five times as many people signed up in october and november combined. frankly, mr. speaker, i'm encouraged and excited by these numbers. americans aren't going to the website because they are forced to like the republicans claim. they are going to the website because they want and need access to health insurance, and this should be no surprise. 30%, nearly one in three of people who have enrolled in a marketplace plan are younger than age 35. 24% are between 18 and 34 years old, and there was more than an eightfold increase in december enrollments in the federal marketplace. in addition more than three million young adults gained coverage because the affordable care act allows them to stay on their parents' plan until they turn 26. so we are getting more of the

younger people as well. meanwhile, healthcare.gov and state websites have received more than 53 visits and state and federal call centers have received more than 11 million calls. the administration is committed to release this information monthly, the way they have done with every other federal program to date. i'm sorry to say i simply do not believe this is a serious effort in any sense of the way by republicans. this bill is nothing but a weak effort to smear the law. and i urge members to oppose the bill. there are only so many resources out there. why would we want h.h.s. to have to provide this excessive information? i would rather they spent their time trying to enroll people, doing more outreach, encouraging people to sign up to actually have health insurance. again, mr. speaker, i urge members to oppose this legislation. i reserve the balance of my ime.

the speaker pro tempore: the gentleman from new jersey reserves. the gentleman from pennsylvania is recognized. mr. pitts: mr. speaker, at this time i'm pleased to yield three minutes to the chairman of the energy and commerce committee, the gentleman from michigan, mr. upton. the speaker pro tempore: the gentleman from michigan is recognized for three minutes. mr. upton: thank you, mr. speaker. i rise in strong support of h.r. 3362, the exchange information disclosure act. this bill would require that h.h.s. provide weekly progress reports regarding the president's health care law, an attempt to ensure greater transparency from an administration that has done everything it can so far to bury the facts when it comes to its signature health care law. remember, this is the administration that knew millions of americans would receive cancellation notices, but they only acted to allow people to keep their health care plan that they had and liked after we forced their hand back a few months ago. and perhaps by acting today we can again force them to do the right thing and share basic information with policymakers and the public about how the law

is working or not. in building healthcare.gov for the october 1 start of open enrollment, the administration chose not to allow americans to window shop and find accurate and reliable prices of health care plans in the exchange. over the last 17 weeks since the law was launched, this administration has released enrollment figures on just a handful of occasions. and we are still left asking the most important question, who's paid? instead the administration is going to great lengths to redefine enrollment as the number of folks who have selected plan through the exchanges. these numbers simply don't tell us the true status of the law, however. more than three months after the start of open enrollment, we still don't know how many americans have actually enrolled in health plans by paying their first month's premium. just one day before the start of open enrollment, secretary sebelius defined success as

enrolling seven million americans by the end of march of 2014. the administration has since distanced itself from enrollment being a measure of success at all. enrolling individuals in health plans is not the goal, what is? preventing access to reliable data about the exchanges is not exactly what you would expect from the self-proclaimed most transparent administration in history. it should not take a vote in congress to get basic information from the administration, but without voluntary transparency, we don't have any other choice. the bill before us would require h.h.s. to provide accurate, useful figures about enrollment, and the operation of the exchanges on a weekly basis. it also is going to require h.h.s. to report to the american people other key metrics, including demographics of enrollees, medicaid enrollment, regular reporting on ongoing problems with healthcare.gov, and h.h.s.'s effects -- efforts

to address those issues. the president's health care law will cost the taxpayers an estimated $2 trillion over the next decade. at the very least the administration should provide the american people regular and ongoing information about its implementation, there is no reason for the administration to keep the public and the congress in the dark whether the news is good or bad, it's time for full disclosure. i urge my colleagues to support the bill. i applaud mr. terry for his leadership. the speaker pro tempore: the gentleman's time has expired. the gentleman from pennsylvania reserves. the gentleman from new jersey is recognized. mr. pallone: mr. speaker, i yield three minutes now to a member of the energy and commerce committee, the gentleman from north carolina, g.k. butterfield. the speaker pro tempore: the gentleman from north carolina is recognized for three minutes. mr. butterfield: thank you, mr. pallone, for yielding time, and especially thank you for your leadership on our committee. it's been nothing less than extraordinary. mr. speaker, i rise today in strong opposition to the exchange information disclosure act. this bill would cost millions of dollars of limited federal

resources but doesn't include any mechanism for paying for it. it is an unnecessary piece of legislation that will have no impact or benefit to the american people. it is just the latest attempt by the republican majority to insight -- insight fear and distrust of the federal health insurance marketplace and discredit president obama and the affordable care act. why if -- "washington post" columnist sergeant wrote the exchange information disclosure act is a political attack come interesting a party that wants to see the law fail. the house has voted 47 times, mr. speaker, on bills that would repeal or undermine the affordable care act but not one of them has become law. bill, d, mr. terry's that we are considering today marks the 48th attempt and is another nail in the coffin of haphazard republican efforts to disenfranchise the american people by chipping away at the

affordable care act with the ultimate goal of taking away americans' access to affordable health care. this bill is notbout transparency and open government, it's true purpose is to pile on more and more unnecessary, cumbersome, and unprecedented requirements so that h.h.s. will be forced to focus time and attention away from managing the federal health insurance marketplace and redirect it to completing worthless weekly reports. i'm particularly disappointed in the committee process. a more accurately the lack of committee process with regard to this bill. the energy and commerce, the committee that i sit on, the health subcommittee at no point did the chairman of the subcommittee more the full committee hold a legislative hearing or markup on this bill. i don't recall one. purely adding mountains of onerous reporting requirements that cost the government millions in order to comply would have warranted an

opportunity for members to weigh in before it was brought to the floor. apparently the chairman of the committee felt differently. this bill is now the 48th example of house republicans pandering to their base by ramming through partisan policies that attack the president. the bill would require h.h.s. to supply congress weekly reports detailing the number of unique website visitors to healthcare.gov. the number of chat logs and number of enrollees by zip code and their level of coverage and other data sets. what exactly my friends hope to accomplish with this weekly data dump still escapes me. perhaps house republicans weren't aware of extensive disclosure data on health insurance enrollments that is already being provided on a monthly basis. the administration releases enrollment data monthly, mr. speaker, just like they do with other e and chip and

federal programs. may i have one additional minute? mr. pallone: i yield the gentleman an additional minute. the speaker pro tempore: the gentleman is recognized for an additional minute. mr. butterfield: the monthly h.h.s. enrollment reports are excellent other federal detail reports. weekly reports will shed no more light on the health exchange than weekly reports. -- monthly reports. the bill also demands that h.h.s. make publicly available a list of navigator grantees. were my colleagues unaware that the department released the entire list of navigator grantees back in october? i have those here for your inspection. i will say it again, this bill is completely unnecessary. it is republican fear mongering. the fact is, mr. speaker, the affordable care act is the law of the land. i ask my colleagues to embrace it. it's benefiting millions of americans in my district and in your district as well. the time, the time, mr. pallone. i yield back. the speaker pro tempore: the gentleman yields back. the gentleman from new jersey

reserves. the gentleman from pennsylvania is recognized. pitts: at this time, i'm pleased to yield three minutes to the prime sponsor of the legislation, the gentleman from nebraska, mr. terry. the speaker pro tempore: the gentleman from nebraska, mr. terry, is recognized for three minutes. mr. terry: thank you, mr. speaker. to clarify one thing, we did have a legislative hearing on this bill with robust debate on it in that committee hearing. evidently you didn't get the otice of that hearing. i only have three minutes. if i have extra time i will. today we are asking what should be an easy vote. and frankly bipartisan vote onl. if i have extra time i will. today we are asking what should be an easy vote. and frankly bipartisan vote. my legislation, the exchange information disclosure act does nothing more than ask the administration to provide congress, governors, and state insurance commissioners and the american people with information. by the way, the information that is outlined in this bill to be provided or accessible on a weekly basis is simply what most states already require to be done by health insurance companies within their states.

this is a request by state insurance commissioners, especially our one from nebraska, that's very frustrated with the lack of information that they are receiving about who's pitts: at this time, sign in the state of nebraska. so this should be easy, but what we are talking about here today is basic transparency. so we all have the data to assess what's working and what's not. this bill is a mechanism for accountability so we can get the democrats is both and republicans and state insurance commissioners and governors need to know in order to understand what's working and what's not. we are democrats and asking for information that an entity overseeing a health insurance operation should have at the tip of their fingers at all times. our metrics are not complex. we are simply asking for how many people have enrolled? how many of these people have paid their first month's premium

which means they are actually insured that they have been effectuated? which plan did they pick? what zip codes are they from so we know what people in nebraska or iowa or kansas have signed up? were they already eligible for medicare or are these new enrollees from the expansion? . these are critical issues about the policies being issued which again state insurance commissioners usually receive. this administration and some on the other side say that this information that we're requesting is extraneous and costly and burdensome, but yet this data is already being obtained. it's already on a real-time basis being calculated. it's just the issue of when and in what form this is released to the public. and costs. here's the c.b.o. -- yeah, the

c.b.o. score. zero. zero. not millions that we're being told by our friends on the other side of the aisle and the white house. now, one other thing -- one more minute? mr. pitts: i yield the gentleman an additional minute. mr. terry: this necessary usual course of briss data, but we do add -- business data, but we do add another part in here, the state insurance commissioners don't know who is selling the insurance. they would like to have the names of the people that are the navigators out there. grants go to organizations, but we don't know who's actually sitting down and selling policies or helping them through the exchange. that's again basic information that's normal course of business in the insurance world. and so we're just simply asking that they provide the same

information that the state law would require of an insurance company who has a salesman that's out there signing people out. and so that's the totality of this bill and you have to ask the question -- if they're fighting so hard, what are they trying to hide? i yield back. the speaker pro tempore: the gentleman from nebraska is -- has yielded back. the gentleman from new jersey is recognized. mr. pallone: i yield four minutes to the gentleman from california, mr. waxman. the speaker pro tempore: the gentleman from california is recognized for four minutes. mr. waxman: mr. speaker and my colleagues, the supporters of this legislation claim that it's simply an effort to get more information about how the affordable care act is being implemented. but it's not really that. it's an effort to slow down implementation of the new law by drowning the department of health and human services in red tape. they want enrollment information, but this week they got enrollment information from the administration. that enrollment information

showed that 2.2 million americans have signed up for private coverage. they want demographic information. well, h.h.s. has given them demographic information. h.h.s. is going to release all the information that they're asking for every month, but the republicans are saying, oh, that's not good enough. we want it every week. but they want more than what otherwise might be available because they want some things i can't understand why they would want to know them. they want the zip codes of everyone who signed up. they want to know what the details of a chat between somebody who's asking a question on the website and what answers they got. i can't understand why that's important. they want to know what transpired in the call centers. in other words, they want to know what somebody said in a

call center. you know, is it their business to know what questions are asked in a call center? ey want a list of the people who are the adjusters and the brokers. well, there are thousands of them around the country, so there's no purpose to know that. they are not accredited by the government. if they are by the states, it's up to each state. they could ask each state that information. let me put this in perspective. if anybody had a bill asking the private sector to come up with reports every single week on information that they could wait a couple more weeks to get , it would be looked at as just straight harassment. government red tape, bureaucracy that's intruding into the business for no purpose. well, that's what this bill is all about. they want to intrude in a government agency. i guess if they have a

bureaucratic intrusion, had a ratment of a government agency it's ok, but -- harassment of a government agency it's ok but if it happened in the private industry it would not be ok. if you ask them to give them the information every week, why do you need it every week? and i ask the republicans, why do they need this every week if they're going to get it every month? well, it's obvious. this law's working and they don't want to come again to the floor for repeal because people have insurance. millions of people now have insurance. they want to repeal the law, they're going to take that insurance away from them. so they want to continue to say, what are they hiding? what are they hiding, they're not giving you on a weekly schedule that they're giving you on a monthly schedule? well, absolutely nothing that is significant. he enrollment reports we already have indicate that six

million people have signed up for coverage since october 1. the website can handle 80,000 simultaneous users and has been stable, even though there is a surge of enrollment late december. the law is working. republicans don't want to hear these facts. they don't want to know about it, but they think they should t everybody at h.h.s., maybe even hire more people to report to them every week so they can still not recognize that there's good news and what is actually happening. this is a goofy bill. it's absolutely unnecessary, and i urge my colleagues to vote against it. the speaker pro tempore: the gentleman's time has expired. the gentleman from pennsylvania is recognized. mr. pitts: mr. speaker, just to clarify, we hear the word sign ed up, signed up, equal to enrollment. we may know how many people signed up. we do not know how many have actually enrolled and paid

their first month's premium. secondly, we are stewards of the taxpayers. we're not shareholders. and the lack of data is precisely what led the chairman of the senate finance committee to declare this law as a train wreck, that there are no metrics, no data to determine whether this law is working and on track. with that i reserve. the speaker pro tempore: the gentleman from pennsylvania reserves. the gentleman from new jersey is recognized. mr. pallone: mr. speaker, i yield three minutes to the gentleman from maryland, member of the energy and commerce committee, mr. sarbanes. the speaker pro tempore: the gentleman from maryland is recognized for three minutes. mr. sarbanes: i thank the chairman of the health subcommittee. i rise to urge a no vote on h.r. 3362 which i think is really just designed to harass the department of health and human services as they're trying to do its job in bringing affordable health care to people all across this country. if you look at the metrics that are already being assembled by the agency on a monthly basis,

they really present a very clear picture of whether there's progress being made or not being made with respect to the website and signing people up for affordable health care. of course we know there is a lot of progress being made. that monthly report includes the total enrollments nationally and by state so we can get a clear picture of what that trend is and that's a positive trend. it includes gender breakdown of those who signed up for the plans, age breakdown, the financial assistance and what kinds of plans people are choosing. that's all good useful information. frankly, it's the kind of information that makes sense to collect on a monthly basis, not on a weekly basis. i mean, these numbers sort of naturally evolve month to month. that's the picture, the photograph you want to take, month to month. week to week doesn't really get you any added insight into what's happening with the website or with the signups.

and then you look at some of the information that they would require on a weekly basis and you got to ask yourself, what purpose would it serve? a state-by-state breakdown -- i'm reading from the bill now -- of the number of web chat log-ins, what are we going to do with that information? that is not useful. that does not add anything to the clear picture that can emerge on a monthly basis of how we're doing with the website. and finally, i have to observe, as chairman waxman just did a moment ago, that we hear all the time from our friends on the other side about importance of government efficiency and working well and streamlining. we hear them talk about that both with respect to government and obviously in terms of what they want to do for private sector businesses out there. these kinds of requirements don't help with that. they're not going to make the agency function more smoothly and more efficiently and get the information out in a

sensible way to the american people. so this is really just designed to kind of harass the agency, make them run around in small circles gathering information and providing stuff that doesn't give us any added perspective or insight into the progress that really is now being made. we can get that picture on a monthly basis. the information that h.h.s. is providing to us and to the public, to the american people i think is very valuable on that monthly basis and that's the way we ought to continue to have it presented to us and presented to the american people. so i urge my colleagues to vote against h.r. 3362. let's let the agency do its job and do it well. i yield back. the speaker pro tempore: the gentleman's time has expired. the gentleman from pennsylvania is recognized. mr. pitts: mr. speaker, opponents of the exchange information disclosure act have argued that requiring weekly reports on the health care law to the american people is too

burdensome, too costly for the department of health and human services. yet, somehow h.h.s. managed to find money in its budget for taxpayer funded grants spent on uch things as bike lane signs, dog neutering campaigns, promoting a sport called pickle ball and lobbying campaigns for soda taxes. clearly h.h.s. does not suffer from a lack of resources, and i reserve the balance of my time. the speaker pro tempore: the gentleman from pennsylvania reserves. the gentleman from new jersey is recognized. mr. pallone: mr. speaker, could i just ask how much time remains? the speaker pro tempore: the gentleman from new jersey has five minutes remaining. the gentleman from pennsylvania has 10 minutes remaining. mr. pallone: i yield three minutes now to my colleague from new jersey, mr. andrews, who spent so much effort in passing and drafting the affordable care act. the speaker pro tempore: the gentleman from new jersey, mr. andrews, is recognized for three minutes. mr. andrews: i ask unanimous consent to revise and extend my remarks. the speaker pro tempore:

without objection. mr. andrews: i thank my friend from new jersey for his tireless leadership on this very important cause. it's inspirational. since the affordable care act became law, nine million americans have health insurance who did not have it before. nine million people. now, not surprisingly, there have been problems in the implementation of the law. many customer service problems need to be addressed, and we should come together in good faith and make sure they get addressed. this bill takes us in the opposite direction. it says that people who could be working on solving the very real and important problems of customers trying to enroll in health insurance will have to write a report once a week instead of once a month. you get your car fixed and there is a long line of people ahead of you and you're going to be late to get back to work and you find out the reason the

line takes so long is that the person at the counter explains the history of the carburetor to every person who picks up their car instead of waiting on the people who are in line. requiring the report a week instead of a month just doesn't make any sense. there's another reason to oppose this bill that's even more important than that. today, 10,000 americans, 10,000 americans will go home and tell their children or their loved ones that they've run out of income because their unemployment benefits have expired. this week 72,000 americans will have that happen to them. there is a bill in this house on this floor that could be taken up this morning and voted on to provide relief to our neighbors and family members who are in that position. this majority leadership has ignored that legislation. this is a breathtaking misplacement of priorities.

we can spend an hour of the house's time on harassing health and human services into filing one report every week instead of one report every month but we can't take five minutes and debate on a bill that will restore a measure of decency and income to 72,000 americans a week. many of these americans are over 50 years old. for every one job that is advertised, there are three people looking for that job. the callous indifference of the house jorp leadership to these people -- majority leadership to these people is wrong and so is this bill. we should reject this bill and instead proceed with a vote on aid to america's long-term unemployed. i yield back the balance of my time. the speaker pro tempore: the gentleman from new jersey yields back. the gentleman from pennsylvania is recognized. mr. pitts: mr. speaker, at this time i'm pleased to yield three minutes to the vice chairman of the energy and commerce

committee, the gentlelady from tennessee, mrs. blackburn. the speaker pro tempore: the gentlelady from tennessee is recognized for three minutes. mrs. blackburn: thank you, mr. speaker. and i thank the gentleman from pennsylvania for the great work that he's done on this bill. mr. terry has also done great work on this bill. you know what is so interesting and one of the reasons we find it necessary to come and address these issues, secretary sebelius told us, told us in december, 5,000 people a day were getting access to health care that they had not had before. the other side of that story, which was not told, 74,000 american families a day were getting cancellation notices. . they looking at one another across the dinner table and saying guess what? our insurance has been canceled. it has had a devastating effect. and as we try to do oversight

and due diligence and continue to push for that oversight and due diligence, and carry it out even this morning at energy and commerce committee, where we have had mr. cohen, what we have found is that it's very difficult to get information. even when where sometimes hearing from employees they are admitting what they told us was wrong but then we do not get the straight story. so it is very appropriate that require h.h.s. to release weekly detailed reports about the exchanges, including their enrollment, their functionality, the efforts to address the technical issues at healthcare.gov. absolutely. absolutely it is appropriate because this is all being done with the taxpayers' money. the american taxpayer has paid for every bit of this. it's not the federal

government's money. it's not president obama's money. it's not congress' money. it is the taxpayers' money, and this is a failed rollout and a failed program. now, this administration was supposed to be the most transparent administration in history. it has not been that. it's well ut documented -- well documented that it hasn't been that and indeed the rollout and implementation of this law has been even less transparent. the reason, i think, is because there have been so many problems , so many problems. such as thousands, millions of americans losing access to their health insurance. none of the information being shared by the administration regarding enrollment means much of anything. we talk about people that enrolled, but we don't know how many people have paid and how

many people have completed that process. what are the demographics of the individuals that are enrolling? all of this is information that the individual that is paying for this, the american taxpayer, deserves to know. who has paid for this insurance? the white house has backed away from using any measure of uccess as a means to determine -- but as recently as september, secretary sebelius herself said that seven million enrolled by the end of march would define success of the law. well, is that seven million that go to the website? put an insurance product in their cart, and then go think about it? you know, mr. speaker, when i was growing up i spent a lot of time working in the retail industry selling clothes in a little dress shop.

now, every once in a while we would have somebody, they would come in, they would put something on hold, and they would say i'm going to be back. well, we called them the be backs, because guess what? more often than not they did not come back and complete that purchase. yes, they put it on hold. yes, they put it in an online shopping cart, but then they move away from it because this program is broken, it is too expensive to afford, and the american people do not want it. i yield back. the speaker pro tempore: the gentlelady's time has expired. the gentleman from new jersey is recognized. mr. pallone: mr. speaker, i would reserve. i only have myself and one more speaker. the speaker pro tempore: the gentleman from new jersey reserves. the gentleman from pennsylvania is recognized. mr. pitts: mr. speaker, at this time i'm pleased to yield three minutes to a very active member

of the health subcommittee, the gentleman from louisiana, dr. cassdy. the speaker pro tempore: the gentleman from louisiana is recognized for three minutes. mr. cassidy: thank you, mr. speaker. i keep asking myself why would we not want to provide transparency? if the federal government is going to do a massive bureaucratic regime involving the american people, why should we not at least require them to be accountable for the success or failure of that regime? the exchange information disclosure act requires accountability and transparency, which has been, frankly, elusive from the administration issues. and indeed before committee and before americans, there's been a tendency to give information which is misleading. for example, enrollment numbers are calculated by the numbers who sign up for coverage not those who actually pay for their first month's premium in reality unless you pay for that first month's premium, you're not enrolled. coverage does not become effective until these are paid,

and history shows many will sign up who will never actually enroll. now, the american people are affected by this. they are paying for it. we are their employees, so to speak. they pay our salary. they have a right to know. and the only way to know is to see the results. i keep on smiling we -- kind of an angry sort of way, when i think about those folks who came to testify about the website, two weeks before it was to open, we were told it was ready and that there were no problems. i specifically asked if the spanish language website would be ready, yes. there's no problem. in truth, none of that was true. now, the only way we learned it was not true is that when the numbers came out it was clear that folks were not enrolling. so everything we had been told s exposed as a lie, and yet,

and yet we would not have known had we not seen those enrollment figures. compliance with this should not be difficult. insurance companies know on a daily basis how many people have clicked on, how many people have signed up, how many checks they receive. insurance companies know this on a daily basis. certainly, mr. speaker, the federal government can tell the american people these results on a weekly basis. now, the exchange information disclosure act is a commonsense piece of legislation that all my colleagues who champion transparency and accountability should support. all it does is ensure full disclosure of the most important data points needed to determine what's really going on with the president's health care law's implementation. it's vitally important for the public. it's vitally important for us. as we attempt to do the american people's will in our oversight of this program. with that i yield back. thank you. the speaker pro tempore: the gentleman yields back. the gentleman from new jersey is recognized. mr. pallone: mr. speaker, i yield one minute to the

gentleman from minnesota, mr. ellison. the speaker pro tempore: the gentleman from minnesota is recognized for one minute. mr. ellison: mr. speaker, we are told that the exchange information disclosure act is just a good faith effort to try to get some transparency. but wait, what? isn't this bill come interesting the same party that shut the government down to try to kill it? didn't that just happen? my memory is not faint about t my memory is very clear that we stood here watching the republican majority shut down all of government to prevent people from health care access. and now we are supposed to believe, oh, we just want to make the bill a little better with transparency. no. what has happened is that millions of people are signing up. people know that if you snatch a benefit from people that they have and expect to have that that's going to cause issues. so now the tactics have changed. instead of an overt or a 50th repeal bill, now we'll just try to undermine it by making a

bunch of paper requirements, more distraction, more paperwork, more division, more distraction, more obstruction t now, i think i prefer the days when we just had repeal bills. vote no. the speaker pro tempore: the gentleman's time has expired. the gentleman from new jersey reserves. the gentleman from pennsylvania is recognized. mr. pith: mr. speaker, i'm prepared to close. the speaker pro tempore: the gentleman from pennsylvania reserves. the gentleman from new jersey is recognized to close. mr. pallone: thank you, mr. speaker. again this g.o.p. bill is designed to harass the department, preventing it from doing its job. it's an unworkable, unnecessary bill that places onerous, unrealistic, and closing reporting requirements on h.h.s. with no benefit to the general public. i heard my colleague say over and over again, nobody's going to enroll. now people are enrolling, we want to know whether they paid or not. where does it end? why don't you spend your time trying to get people to enroll, trying to get people information and do more outreach so people

actually are able to get health insurance? that's what we are trying to do with the affordable care act. make people who don't have insurance get insurance. make people who do have it have it more affordable, have a better benefit package. all these things are wonderful. this is what people want. that's why so many people are in fact signing up. i just cannot help but think that this is nothing but another effort to make it more burdensome to scare people, to make it less likely that people actually enroll. mr. speaker, i wanted to mention that the administration opposes the bill. the administration said that they oppose the passage because it would require unfunded, unprecedented, and unnecessary reporting requirements that exceed those of other public programs. thank you, mr. speaker. i urge a no vote. the speaker pro tempore: the gentleman's time has expired. the gentleman from pennsylvania is recognized for three minutes. mr. pitts: mr. speaker, as secretary sebelius acknowledged at an energy and commerce hearing in december, enrollment in an exchange plan is not

complete until the first month's premium has been paid. the administration so far has refused to tell the american people how many people are actually enrolled by paying their first month's premium in the health care law's exchanges. asking the department to provide the american people regular updates is simply a matter of transparency. given that h.h.s. officials were so blatantly wrong about the readiness of the health care law's exchanges, they don't deserve the benefit of the doubt. regular disclosure is necessary to assess the status of the law and that is all this bill requires. let's make the administration who has continually held back facts regarding implementation of the health care law meet their pledge to be the most transparent in history. i urge my colleagues to vote for this bill and i yield back the balance of my time.

the speaker pro tempore: the gentleman from pennsylvania yields back his remaining time. the speaker pro tempore: the chair recognizes the gentleman from michigan. >> thank you, mr. speaker. i yield myself such time as i may consume. the speaker pro tempore: the gentleman is recognized. >> mr. speaker, i rise today in support of h.r. p 362, the exchange information disclosure act. mr. camp: there's widespread agreement that the obamacare rollout was a failure. most of us believe the administration's lack of transparency and candor with congress and the american people caused most of the problems. since the beginning of the rollout, i pressed the administration to release enrollment data to the congress. the data including who is actually enrolling and what mix of those who signed up looks

like, those are the kinds of facts we need before us to evaluate how this fundamental restructuring of our health care system is really operating. yet the administration did not provide that long-promised transparency. instead, i was forced to subpoena the administration to get any information. while i received some of what i requested, it's not enough for congress to understand the true impact of this law. it's clear that more than halfway through the enrollment the administration is failing to meet its own goal of seven million enrollees by march 31. last week the administration released data that showed it failed to meet an even more important goal, the right mix of young and healthy enrollees. the reality is you need a good balance of young and healthy individuals in order to offset the more expensive costs of those who are older and less healthy. without enough young and healthy enrollees, millions of americans, including those who have had their plan canceled as a result of the president's

broken promise, will see higher costs and fewer choices. with the little data we have, we can see this is actually what's happening. the american people deserve better than the administration's empty promises. they deserve to know what is really going on. additionally, the administration's not provided any information on the number of people who have completed enrollment. we don't know how many people have paid their premium. taxpayers don't know how many people are receiving tax credits. there's no harm to national security if the administration provides this information to congress, the media, and the american people. but there may be harm to an individual's health security if their interests aren't protect. frankly, i believe this administration cares more about implementing this law than protecting the health care of american families. the american people have every right to know this information and the future of their health care. having this data will not change the president's broken promise that is if you like your plan

you can keep it, or his promise that families will see a 2 $2,500 reduction in their premiums. however t. will undoubtedly affect americans' health care future. this is not just arbitrary data, this information will determine how much premiums will increase next year, whether access to care will become more limited, and how many insurers may no longer offer coverage, and whether or not you can keep seeing your current doctor. this administration's failed rollout has given the american people little confidence that they can effectively oversee the overhaul of 1/6 of theth economy. what possible reason other than politics could there be for the administration not reloosing this information? . this is tatea that the american people -- data that the american people deserve to know. i urge my colleagues on both sides of the aisle to support this bill and i call on the senate to take quick action to move this commonsense legislation forward, and i reserve the balance of my time. the speaker pro tempore: the gentleman reserves the balance

of his time. the gentleman from michigan is recognized. mr. levin: i yield myself such time as i may consume. the speaker pro tempore: the gentleman is recognized. think informed people are asking, why are we taking up this bill this morning? i guess one reason is because the republicans will do ything they can to undermine a.c.a. inl -- indeed, the more it's successful, the more desperate they become. the administration says it quite clearly. to implement, and i quote, this new reporting system, contracts will need to be modified and new staff will have to be hired on an expedited basis, adding millions of dollars in costs to states and the federal government. without additional funding from the congress for information

that is already largely being provided on a monthly basis, consistent with other publicly funded health care programs. maybe a second reason we're taking up this bill is because the republicans in this house think there's nothing else to do. this bill's going nowhere in the senate and you know that. you know that. but there is something else that we should be doing. e're leaving here for 11 days. the house republicans have said we're not going to be in session next week. 1.5 million americans have lost their unemployment insurance ecause of inaction from this

house of representatives. next week, 72,000 more will be added to the 1.5 million people. 50,000 in the state from which r. camp and i come from. 50,000 left out in the cold, ft out in the cold, left really on their own devices without a single bit of assistance that they really worked for. these are people out of work through no fault of their own looking for work and essentially they get from this institution action this morning on a bill going nowhere when there is somewhere we should be

going. i think this morning represents maybe more vividly than in recent times a reprehensible distortion of priorities of the ajority in this house. 0,000 people in michigan ooking for work at a time when the majority are long-term employed. three people looking for work for every job that's available, and we come forth here with a bill that's going nowhere? represent rehencible. inexcusable. you can go home.

i suggest you go home and talk -- i guess you haven't done this yet -- to the long-term unemployed. every single person who votes for this bill should go home and talk to those out of work nd out of luck because the majority in this institution, in this house are simply out of sync with the needs of the american people. we should vote no on this bill because we need the opportunity to vote yes on what really matters. i reserve the balance of my time. the speaker pro tempore: members are reminded to address their remarks to the chair. the gentleman from michigan, mr. camp, is recognized. mr. camp: well, i thank the chair for that admonition, and i would yield three minutes to the distinguished member of the

ways and means committee, the gentleman from indiana, mr. young. the speaker pro tempore: the gentleman from indiana is recognized for three minutes. mr. young: mr. speaker, since the launch of open enrollment in healthcare.gov on october 1, i've heard repeated stories of frustration from my constituents trying to enroll in the federal exchanges. the president and his administration have tried to assure us time and again that the website's improving and that americans are enrolling. unfortunately, neither the stories i've been told nor the claims of this administration are easy to verify because h.h.s. is giving us very little data to go off of. now, that's a shame because one of the greatest constitutional obligations of the legislative branch is robust oversight of the executive branch to be sure the laws are working and enforced as intended. but there's an even bigger shame here. in august of 2013, h.h.s. estimated in a approximately 900,000 -- that approximately

900,000 individuals in my state of indiana are eninsured. this week h.h.s. offered us a progress report. now, can you guess how many hoosiers, according to this report, actually selected a plan through healthcare.gov as of december 28? only 30,000. now, that means, according to the h.h.s. estimates, the obama administration estimates 29 out of every 30 uninsured hoosiers have not selected a plan through healthcare.gov. that 30,000 figure, by the way, is suspect in itself, to put it charitablely. since h.h.s. is only reporting those who put a plan in a shopping cart, we don't know how many went through with the purchase. now, with a big deadline coming up with the individual mandate tax penalty, it's imperative that congress understands

exactly how many people are in compliance with the law. merely selecting a plan won't help you avoid being taxed by the i.r.s. that's why i'm a strong supporter of the exchange information disclosure act. the obama administration should be required to provide the american people and congress weekly reports on the status of healthcare.gov. they should be required to tell us how many are actually purchasing plans. they should be required to tell us all sorts of additional data points they're already tracking that will help congress perform our oversight role on behalf of the american people. i urge my colleagues to support this measure here in the house and hopefully in the senate and i yield back. the speaker pro tempore: the gentleman from indiana yields back. the gentleman from michigan, mr. levin, is recognized. mr. levin: i now yield three minutes to a member of our committee, the gentleman from new york, mr. crowley.

the speaker pro tempore: the gentleman is recognized for three minutes. mr. crowley: mr. speaker, i thank the gentleman from michigan for yielding me this time. mr. speaker, it's a shame we're not up here considering an extension of the unemployment insurance. american families are looking for some kind of sign that their congress isn't going to leave town without extending unemployment slurns insurance -- insurance. i don't think they're amused by this 48th attempt to undermine health care in our country. the fact is the legislation before us is supposedly all about the numbers. my colleagues on the other side of the aisle are fixated on the numbers behind the affordable care act. they seem to think they'll find numbers that somehow discredit the law and the important benefits it provides. but you know what, it is true that numbers tell an important story, so here are some numbers that actually matter for the marn -- american people.

nine million, that's how many people have already obtained health insurance under the affordable care act. nine million. it's also nine million people who don't have to worry that a major medical incident could bankrupt them and their families. 25 million, that's how many seniors on medicare received free preventive care last year because of the affordable care act. 25 million. that's 25 million seniors who n get a programo gram or a cholesterol -- mammogram or cholesterol screening, saving taxpayers dollars. eight million, big number. eight million, that's how many jobs have been created in this country since the passage of the affordable care act. eight million. that's more than twice as many jobs created than were lost

during the 10 years before the affordable care act was enacted. there are just some -- these are just some of the numbers that tell the true story of the affordable care act. not to mention the number of people with pre-existing conditions who can no longer be discriminated against or the seniors who are seeing reduced prices on their prescription drugs or the small business owners who now have a way to provide insurance for themselves and their employees. these are the numbers, these are the numbers that matter to me because the affordable care act is about helping the american people afford care in this country. so my colleagues on the other side of the aisle can go ahead and play their number games as long as they want, but their fixation doesn't add up. these numbers do. with that, mr. speaker, i yield back the balance of my time. the speaker pro tempore: the gentleman yields back the balance of his time. the gentleman from michigan,

mr. camp, is recognized. mr. camp: i reserve. the speaker pro tempore: the gentleman from michigan, mr. camp, reserves. the gentleman from michigan, mr. levin, is recognized. 2 1/2 minutes remaining. mr. levin has 2 1/2 minutes remaining. mr. camp has 3 1/2 minutes remaining. mr. levin: is the chairman going to close? mr. camp: yeah, i have no further speakers. i'm prepared to close. the speaker pro tempore: the gentleman is recognized for 2 1/2 minutes. mr. levin: i yield the balance of the time to the gentleman from washington, mr. mcdermott. the speaker pro tempore: the gentleman from washington is recognized for 2 1/2 minutes. mr. speaker, what we're engaged in today is what i call loving a bill to death. every legislator knows how you do it. you load it up with a bunch of stuff to kill it. they are still trying to do this. they are not talking about transparency or accountability. it is simply another plan to muck up the path to better health for americans.

it's not surprising because the house republicans don't want a health care system that works any more they want a balanced budget. if they wanted a balanced budget, they wouldn't push for health care policies that costs more to get less. america spends more on health care than any other advanced nation, and we get worse outcomes. let me tell you the reason for that. we spend less on social services. instead of helping people to get good food to stay in shape, we pay more for food stamps. we force them to push them into nursing homes. instead of helping people to stay in their homes instead of strengthening the bridge between job and new career, we pull the rug out from under them and right now every eight seconds another american loses his unemployment insurance. 15 families aking,

will lose their way of supporting themselves. where do these people go? how do they stay healthy? is it any wonder our diet is full of what we call comfort food? is it any wonder that we're the most anxious country in the world? is it any wonder that the e.r. has become the -- more common than the doctor's office? we can pay now, we can invest in a country where people have jobs, we can help people keep their homes and care for themselves or we will pay later in skyrocketing health care costs, in the economic drag of a sick nation. if republicans wanted a health care system that works, we'd be investing, not wasting our time, in forcing states and the federal government to spend more on useless bureaucracy. nobody's asking for this. maybe the insurance companies want to have more data, i don't know, but nobody who's

administering this program has said, let's have more reports. we don't know enough. it's like babies. you don't weigh them every day to see if they've gained wait. you take a minute a couple months or every month and get the baby checked. that's what they're doing already and they say, let's do it every day, let's do it every week. let's waste more time and money. vote no on this wasteful, destructive bill. the speaker pro tempore: the gentleman's time has expired. the gentleman from michigan, mr. camp, is recognized for 3 1/2 minutes to close. mr. camp: thank you. i yield myself the balance of the time. the speaker pro tempore: the gentleman is recognized. mr. camp: the reason this legislation is important is that from what little information we do have is we know the administration's not meeting their stated goals, they're not on track to meet seven million people by march 31. we don't know how many people -- we don't know the mix of people that have enrolled. we don't know how many of them are young and healthy. we don't know how many of them have paid a premium, and the

reason these things are important for us to know and to track is this is a big deal. this is 1/6 of the american economy. there's probably no legislative area that affects people more than their health care. . the reason we have to know this information is if they aren't meeting their stated goals and projections in terms of the cost of this bill, it could mean that people's premiums skyrocket next year. it could mean that the physician that they are used to seeing and being treated by, many times for an ongoing illness, may not be available to them under their insurance plan. these are important issues. these are important benchmarks for us to know. it's important for the american people to know. it's important for the media to know, because then if we can understand what's really happening as we are in the middle of this, constructive changes could be made to this bill. and what they want to do is keep us in the dark. they say vote no. make sure we don't know what's going on. and then we'll have the health care crisis even greater than

the one we have now. i urge a yes vote on this bill and i yield back the balance of my time. the speaker pro tempore: the gentleman from michigan yields back the balance of his time of the all time for debate having expired, pursuant to house resolution 455, the previous question is ordered on the bill as amended. the question is on enrowsment and third reading of the bill. so many as are in favor say aye. those opposed, no. the ayes have it. third reading. the clerk: a bill to amend the patient protection and affordable care act to require transparency in the operation of american health benefits exchanges. the speaker pro tempore: for what purpose does the gentlelady from massachusetts seek recognition? >> mr. speaker, i have a motion to recommit at the desk. the speaker pro tempore: is the gentlelady opposed to the bill? >> i am. the speaker pro tempore: the gentlelady qualifies. the clerk will report the motion. the clerk: ms. clarke of massachusetts moves to recommit the bill h.r. 3362 to the committee on energy and commerce -- the speaker pro tempore: the clerk will suspend. the gentleman from pennsylvania is recognized. mr. pitts: i reserve a point of order against the motion to recommit. the speaker pro tempore: point of order is reserved. the clerk may continue. the clerk: with instructions to rereport the same back to the

house forthwith with the following amendment. add at the end of the bill the following new section, section 5, disclosure of lower costs and additional health benefits provided to individuals and families not later than five five days after the enactment of this act and every month thereafter through march, 2015, the secretary of health and human services shall submit to congress and make available to state governors, state insurance commissioners, and public a report containing information with respect to individuals and families enrolling in health insurance coverage through an exchange established under title 1 of the patient protection and affordable care act on each of the following. one, the number of such individuals and families who have received premium tax credits or have lower out-of-pocket costs. two, the number of such individuals and families who are no longer subject to discrimination based on pre-existing conditions. three, the number of such

individuals and families who are no longer subject to annual and lifetime limits on health insurance coverage. four, the number of such individuals and families who were uninsured prior to enrolling in health insurance coverage through such an exchanges. nothing in this act shall limit the ability of the secretary of health and human services to inform individuals and families of the lower costs for health insurance coverage and additional benefits that are available pursuant to the patient protection and affordable care act and title 1 and subtitle b of tight 28 of the health care and education reconciliation act of 2010. the speaker pro tempore: pursuant to the rule, the gentlelady from massachusetts is recognized for five minutes in support of her motion. ms. clark: thank you, mr. speaker. i yield myself such time as i may consume. this is the final amendment to the bill. this amendment will not kill the bill and should it pass, the house will immediately take up the bill as amended. mr. speaker, having just been sworn in a month ago, may i

first say it is an honor to serve the fifth district of massachusetts. and my district is looking to us to focus on jobs, rebuilding the economy, and extending unemployment benefits. instead, republicans are zedled the 48th vote to undermine the affordable care act. we have a job to do. we have to ensure that the hardworking families we serve are able to navigate the health care law and are able to make informed decisions about their health care coverage. our job is to ensure as problems arise we are able to direct resources toward a timely fix. some of my colleagues believe that an increase in transparency will help us achieve those goals so why not do that? why not let americans know exactly what has been going on since this law has been implemented? why not let people understand

all facets of this law? i support transparency and making the laws the best they can be for millions of families and children who will benefit from it. i know firsthand how good this reform will be for american people because i have watched it happen in my own state. in 2006, massachusetts implemented health care reform which today is benefiting hundreds of thousands of families. it took hard work and it meant lawmakers who didn't always agree on everything had to work together to do right by those we serve. today 98% of the people in massachusetts are benefiting from some form of health care coverage. because i was not elected last fall, like millions of americans i watched from home as the destructive and irresponsible fight against the a.c.a. shut

our government down. it's time to stop the obstruction over this issue and get back to work for the american people. if our goal is truly transparent transparency, not just harassment to make sure the law never works, why not give the full picture? let's give families and businesses all the information they need regarding what's available to them as well as what we are going to do to make the law work better. my motion to recommit will better inform those we serve with the facts about the benefits which millions of american families are seeking. my amendment will provide the full picture not just data, handpicked to support a partisan argument. this includes information -- regarding how many families and individuals have received tax credits. it will include disclosures on the number of americans no longer subject to the

discrimination based on pre-existing conditions. families at home will know how many people are no longer subject to annual and lifetime limits on coverage. they will know how many people who were previously uninsured are now able to access health care and plan for their future. if we are to do right by those we serve, do what we were elected to do, which is make health care reform work for the american people, then we should spare the partisan agendas and pass this commonsense amendment. mr. speaker, i yield back. the speaker pro tempore: the gentlelady from massachusetts yields back the balance of her time. for what purpose does the gentleman from pennsylvania rise? mr. pitts: i withdraw my point of order and claim time in opposition to the motion. the speaker pro tempore: without objection, the gentleman is recognized for five minutes. mr. pitts: thank you, mr. speaker. opponents of the exchange information and disclosure act argue that h.h.s. is already

reporting data. yet more than three months after the disastrous launch of the exchanges, we simply do not know how many americans have actually completed enrollment by paying their first month's premium. as secretary sebelius acknowledged at an energy and commerce committee hearing in december, enrollment in an exchange is not complete until the first month's premium has been paid. the administration so far has refused to tell the american people how many people are actually enrolled in the health care law's exchanges. either the administration is refusing to tell us how many people are actually enrolled, or they simply do not know. neither answer should instill onfidence in a law that puts

two trillion taxpayer dollars on the line. this underlying bill would require the administration to give us real and actual enrollment data. the american people deserve transparency. and this is what the exchange information disclosure act would deliver. i urge all members to oppose this motion to recommit and to vote for the underlying bill. i yield back the balance of my time. the speaker pro tempore: the gentleman from pennsylvania yields back the balance of his time. without objection, the previous question is ordered on the motion to recommit. the question is on the motion. so many as are in favor say aye. those opposed, no. in the opinion of the chair, the noes have t the motion is not agreed to. the gentlelady from massachusetts. ms. clark: mr. speaker, i request the yeas and nays. the speaker pro tempore: the yeas and nays are requested. those favoring a vote by the yeas and nays will rise. a sufficient number having arisen, the yeas and nays are ordered. members will record their votes by electronic device. pursuant to clause 9 of rule 20,

the chair will reduce to five minutes the minimum time for any electronic vote on the question of pass ang. 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 186. the nays are 226. the motion is not adopted. the question is on passage of the bill. so many as are in favor say aye. those opposed, no. in the opinion of the chair, the yes have it. the gentleman from new jersey. mr. andrews: on that i demand the yeas and nays. the speaker pro tempore: the yeas and nays are requested. those favoring a vote by the yeas and nays will rise and be counted. a sufficient number having arisen, the yeas and nays are ordered. members will record their votes by electronic device. this will be 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 259. the nays are 154. the bill is passed. without objection, the motion to reconsider is laid on the table.

the chair announces the speaker's appointment pursuant 6968-a . -- 10 u.s.c. and of the following member on the part of the house to the board of visitors to the united states naval academy. the clerk: mr. mike rogers of ichigan. the speaker pro tempore: for what purpose does the gentleman from california rise? >> mr. speaker, by direction of the democratic caucus, i offer a privileged resolution and ask for its immediate consideration. the speaker pro tempore: without objection, the resolution is agreed to -- without objection, the clerk will report the resolution. the clerk: house resolution 460, resolved, that the following named member be and is hereby elected to the following standing committee of the house of representatives, one, committee on the judiciary, mr. cicilline.

the speaker pro tempore: without objection, the resolution is agreed to and the motion to reconsider is laid on the table. for what purpose does the gentleman from virginia seek recognition? mr. cantor: mr. speaker, i send to the desk a privileged resolution -- a privileged concurrent resolution and ask for its immediate consideration in the house. the speaker pro tempore: the clerk will report the concurrent resolution. the clerk: house concurrent resolution 75, resolved, that the two houses of congress assemble in the hall of the house of representatives on tuesday, january 28, 2014, at 9:00 p.m. for the purpose of receiving such communication as the president of the united states shall be pleased to make to them. the speaker pro tempore: without objection, the concurrent resolution is agreed to and the motion to reconsider s laid on the table.

for what purpose does the gentleman from virginia seek recognition? mr. cantor: mr. speaker, i ask unanimous consent that when the house adjourns today it adjourn to meet at 1:00 p.m. tomorrow. the speaker pro tempore: without objection, so ordered. the house will come to order. the chair will now entertain requests for one-minute speeches. for what purpose does the gentleman from pennsylvania eek recognition? mr. thompson: mr. speaker, request unanimous consent to address the house for one minute and to revise and extend my remarks. the speaker pro tempore: without objection, the gentleman from pennsylvania is recognized for one minute. mr. thompson: mr. speaker, the house is not in order. the speaker pro tempore: the house will come to order. take all your conversations off the floor, please.

mr. thompson: mr. speaker, congressman jim langevin and i serve as co-chair for the bipartisan career and technical education or the c.t.e. caucus. during the two previous congresses, we worked to raise awareness of the importance of career in technical education. we've also led the charge to ensure that c.t.e. programs receive robust funding. for nearly a decade, c.t.e. programs are largely -- were largely marginalized, receiving level funding and even taking sizeable reductions. the c.t. caucus in turn has advocating for maintaining funding levels for c.t. programs. we're pleased yesterday the house passed modest funding increases for c.t. programs. this is a good start. mr. speaker, were so many unemployed or underemployed in this country, it's time to take a strategic approach to helping americans get back to work. we can no longer undervalue c.t.e. we'll only secretary seed if

career technical education is our strategy. mr. speaker, i'd like as a point of personal privilege a valued house staff member, trudy terry, is retiring before we return from this coming week's recess. i want to thank her for her service to this country. thank you, trudy and thank you, myrick. i -- and thank you, mr. speaker. i yield back the balance of my time. the speaker pro tempore: please take all your conversations off the floor. for what purpose does the gentleman from rhode island eek recognition? mr. langevin: i ask unanimous consent to address the house for one minute and to revise and extend my remarks. the speaker pro tempore: without objection, the gentleman from rhode island is recognized for one minute. mr. langevin: thank you, mr. speaker. i join my colleague, congressman g.t. thompson, from pennsylvania as co-chairs of the bipartisan career and

technical education caucus in commending house appropriators and my colleagues for the increase in funding for career technical education funding. this funding is vitally important for training the next generation of workers who will enter the career and technical education fields. these are good-paying jobs. at a time when rhode island, my state, has the highest unemployment rates in the country, this funding for career in technical education couldn't come at a more critical time. it is frustrating to see so many people out of work and yet when you talk to businesses around our state, around the country, one of the main things that they have finding a real challenge is finding people with the right skills to do the jobs that are available right now. so by focusing on these areas of career in technical education, whether it be in i.t. or in woodworking or culinary, engineering, these are vitally important jobs in

our communities, in our country and going to do a lot to get people back to work. so i want to thank my colleagues for their support of perkins act funding and career in technical education funding and i want to thank g.t. thompson from pennsylvania for the warm effort he and i put in this vitally important area. thank you and 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 minnesota seek recognition? >> ask unanimous consent to address the house for one minute and to revise and extend my remarks. the speaker pro tempore: the gentleman from minnesota is recognized for one minute. mr. paulsen: mr. speaker, i along with peter welch, and senators wyden and isakson introduced bipartisan legislation to truly bend the cost curve and improve medicare. medicare today, mr. speaker, is very different than it was in 1965 as 68% of all beneficiaries have two or more chronic conditions which account now for 93% of all medicare costs. our legislation will help seniors, like darlene from my district, who suffers from

multiple chronic conditions, including arthritis and diabetes. the complexity of gaining input from her many doctors and nurses makes it very difficult for her to manage her own health. this is a difficulty that many seniors typically face today. but by modernizing the medicare payment system, paying for results, not just activity, incentivizing people to take care of themselves and removing the barriers to innovation, we can ensure that seniors get the right care at the right time. we can also take advantage of health care technology in telehealth. we can brean down the barriers of geographic barriers to bring chronic care management like the mayo clinic in minnesota to life. mr. speaker, we can create a better system, and this bipartisan group shows it can be done with a little cooperation and collaboration and i yield back. the speaker pro tempore: the gentleman's time has expired. for what purpose does the gentlelady from new york seek recognition?

the gentlelady from new york is recognized for one minute. ms. clarke: thank you, mr. speaker. mr. speaker, i stand here before you to acknowledge and in remembrance of the fourth anniversary of the catastrophic earthquake in haiti of january, 2010. i come in honor and in awe of the unmitt grated strength, health and faith of the haitian people. although there is significant progress to be made, let us take the time to remember those who have died, those who continue living with the visible and invisible scars of trauma. we cannot forget those who still remain in camps, subject to forced evictions and living in precarious conditions. victims member those sexual and gender-based victims.

mr. speaker, the passion of the haitian people continues to inspire a sense of community, generosity, strength and drive throughout the caribbeans dies a practice. therefore, i ask my colleagues to draw on the energy, will of the haitian people and continue to fight to help haiti to truly recover from the devastating earthquake of 2010. and i yield back the balance of my time. the speaker pro tempore: the gentlelady's time has expired. for what purpose does the gentleman from pennsylvania seek recognition? >> i ask unanimous consent to address the house for one minute and to address the house for one minute. the speaker pro tempore: without objection, the gentleman from pennsylvania is recognized for run minute. mr. shuster: at one point i misspoke and today i want to make crystal career that life begins at conception and i'm proud of my record fighting and voting for to protect the right of the unborn. yesterday we passed an important appropriations bill to move our nation in a financially sound way and we've done four years in a row

reduced spending and first time since the korean war. equally important in that bill, it keeps in place laws of protecting the life of the unborn. with that i am proud of the vote we took yesterday. thank you and i yield back. the speaker pro tempore: the gentleman yields back the balance of his time. for what purpose does the gentlelady from florida seek recognition? >> i ask unanimous consent to address the house for one minute and to revise and extend my remarks. the speaker pro tempore: without objection, the gentlelady from florida is recognized for one minute. >> thank you, mr. speaker. dana from my home state of florida is frightened. ms. frankel: despite the fact she got her first job at age 15, despite the fact she worked continuously her entire adult life, at age 60 she lost a longtime job because of this country's economic ndou turn, despite the fact that she's been looking for a job every day and she's not found one, despite all these facts, this congress has failed to extend emergency unemployment insurance that would give her and thousands of floridians a

little bit of help in paying their electricity and water bills until they find their next job. mr. speaker, let us vote today to extend relief deserved by america's job seekers. mr. speaker, dana from my home state of florida is frightened. i yield back my time. the speaker pro tempore: the gentlelady yields back. for what purpose does the gentleman from new york seek recognition? >> i ask unanimous consent to address the house for one minute and to revise and extend my remarks. the speaker pro tempore: without objection, the gentleman from new york is recognized for one minute. mr. tonko: thank you, mr. speaker. yesterday i and a number of our colleagues in the house asked for unanimous consent to bring up h.r. 3824, the emergency unemployment compensation extension act, for a simple up or down vote. time and time again we were denied that simple vote. mr. speaker, poll after poll show us that -- shows us that

independents, republicans and democrats support at least the three-month extension of unemployment insurance. we continue to be in dare election of our duty -- dereliction of our our duty. last week i met with two new yorkers in my district who paid into this program for years and they are shocked as am i, mr. speaker, that elected officials in washington continue to sit idly by without supporting them. a simple up or down vote, that is all we are asking for, mr. speaker. let's pass this critical lifeline. let's do what is fair and just and let's get back to the business of growing jobs and our economy. with that i yield back. the speaker pro tempore: the gentleman's time has expired. for what purpose does the gentleman from wisconsin seek recognition? >> i ask unanimous consent to address the body for one minute and to revise and extend my remarks. the speaker pro tempore: without objection, the gentleman from wisconsin is recognized for one minute. mr. pocan: thank you, mr. speaker. i'm honored to be part of the safe climate caucus and speak on the urgent need to take

action on climate change. the effects of climate change are undeniable and their consequences are unavoidable without action and that means action by congress. in my home state of wisconsin, farmers could face more pests and widespread disease with higher humidity and warmer temperatures. ice fishermen see fewer days they can be out on our ice-covered lakes. winters in wisconsin are expected to be seven to nine degrees warmer. by the middle of the century, extreme heat in wisconsin, which is responsible for more deaths in my state than any other natural disaster combined, will be more prevalent with up to a month more of 90-degree-plus days. these types of dramatic shifts must be met by equally big changes in our behaviors. we must continue to push for alternatives to fossil fuels like oil and coal, we must reduce our emissions and accurately assess their true costs and boost our energy efficiency by investing in clean energy manufacturing for

our environment and for our jobs. thank you, mr. speaker. the speaker pro tempore: the gentleman's time has expired. for what purpose does the gentlelady from california seek recognition? >> i ask unanimous consent to address the house for one minute. the speaker pro tempore: the gentlelady is recognized for ne minute. ms. lee: according to the united nations there are over two million registered refugees from syria, including 1.4 million children. the united nations security council urged syria to take immediate step it is grant organizations full access to conduct relief operations. yet today, there are reports that the government can'ts -- continues to block aid to victims desperately in need of relief, causing needless hunger and suffering aamong syria's civilian population. these actions are not just an offense against our conscience, they are also offenses against

international law and united nations obligations. as world leaders gather next week in pursuit of a political solution, we must hold all parties to the syrian conflict accountable and find a negotiated settlement to end this crisis through hard work and diplomacy. i'm proud that the united states is the leading donor of aid and i'm pleased that the omnibus bill we passed included increased funding to support our ongoing humanitarian response. the speaker pro tempore: the gentlelady's time has expired. for what purpose does the gentlelady 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 gentlelady is recognized for one minute. ms. jackson lee: i rise to say we are in fact our brothers' and sisters' keepers. i want to debunk the terrible definition and description of some 1.3 million, now 1.9 million unemployed americans. i reject the theory that they

only sit around and sit around for unemployment and will not look for a job unless they are not getting unemployment insurance. when everybody knows that the requirements of emergency unemployment insurance requires individuals to look for work and everyone that i've spoken to, including the story of the woman in new york, 58 years old, looked for work over and over, and likewise, is desperate and devastated because she's not able to provide for the bare minimum. i've introduced h.r. 3888 and i ask my leagues to join me in legislation that will target and train the chronically unemployed, provide their unemployment insurance and give them a stipend for emergency industry training. i ask my republic colleagues, if they're interested in jobs, jobs, job, join this legislation, but right now, today, let's stay here and vote on unemployment insurance for the millions of meshes -- americans who have contributed and shed their blood, many of them veterans, many willing to

sacrifice and all they need is a helping hand. the speaker pro tempore: the gentlelady's time as ex-tired. ms. jackson lee: i yield back. the speaker pro tempore: the gentlelady'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 from texas is recognized for one minute. >> thank you, mr. speaker. i'm sure every member of congress thinks his or her district is the most beautiful and most unique of all. mr. gallego: but the 23rd district of texas is a huge, huge area, i want to take you around the area. i'll start with the city of alpine, my hometown. it's the county seat of brewster county, the county seat of the largest county in texas, home of sull ross state university which has more national rodeo championships

than any other college in the nation and is the home birth place of the intercollegiate organization. look up alpine. i'm thinking about alpine a lot as i go home to address the chamber of commerce for the first time as a member of congress. i'm looking forward to being home in the highest, tallest peaks of west texas. thank you so much and i yield back the balance of my time. the speaker pro tempore: the gentleman yields back. are there further requests for one-minute speeches? the chair lay -- seeing none, the chair lays before the house the following personal requests. the clerk: leave of absence requested for ms. slaughter of new york for today. the speaker pro tempore: without objection the request s granted. under the speaker's announced policy of january 3, 2013, the gentleman from california, mr.

farr, is recognized for 60 minutes as the designee of the minority leader. mr. farr: thank you very much, mr. speaker. i rise today to honor the lives of navy sailors who were tragically killed in last week's helicopter crash off the coast of virginia. the crash touched my office in a personal way. petty officer third class brian an true collins was one of the three sailors who -- brian andrew collins was one of the three sailors who lost his life in that crash. he's the brother of one of my staffers,more began. my entire staff -- morgan. my entire staff shared her grief. he was born and raised in california. he was an avid skier who first strapped on his first pair of skis at the age of 2. he loved to fly down the mountains of california,

bouncing in and out of the trees. after high school, brian briefly attended trade school before deciding to enlist in the military. he was -- it was the navy that he found his calling. brian was a member of the helicopter mine countermeasure squadron. those teams patrol the watt torings locate and destroy sea-based mines that could harm navy vessels. brian loved that mission. he enjoyed jumping out of helicopters into the water as the primary rescue swimmer. it was during his service that he married his wife cheyenne. they just celebrated their one-year anniversary and bought their first home. they were starting their life together and still had so much to experience. cheyenne said, we just scratched the surface. i will never have the fortune of meeting brian, however, i

feel honored to have gotten to know him through the memories shared by the people whom he loved. there are few words that can comfort his family and friends a heir loss so i can offer sincere and humble thank you for your service. thank you for sharing brian's story, cheyenne, and on behalf of all americans, thank you for all the military men and women in service. i ask that this house adjourn in a moment of silence in honor of the life of petty officer third class brian collins. and his two fellow crew members who lost their lives in that crash. lieutenant shawn snyder and lieutenant wesley van dorn. thank you mr. speaker.

the speaker pro tempore: under the speaker a's announced policy, the gentleman from pennsylvania, mr. perry, is recognized for 60 minutes as the designee of the majority leader. mr. perry: thank you, mr. speaker. at this time i would like to recognize the gentleman from indiana, mr. rokita. mr. rokita: i thank the gentleman. i rise today on behalf of one f my constituents, janet, from crawfordville, pictured here with her husband steve. like millions of our fellow americans, she is finding out

just how desiptive obama caver's cheerleaders were when they sold this insidious law to the american people. following surgical treatment for cancer last year, she was receiving radiation treatment and as if battling a serious illness wasn't stressful enough she recently lost her job and was notified the insurance provided through her severance package would be ending soon. her family faced the decision to either continue toe same coverage under what we call cobra or enroll in an obamacare plan. she was skeptical of the process of enrolling in obamacare but as the end date of her employer-sponsored insurance loomed, she was reassured by news that the president and his team had fixed the technical glitches plaguing healthcare.gov. mr. speaker, i wish i could report that the story ends there on a good note but like for millions of other americans, it only gets worse. imagine janet's frustration

when she encountered glitch after glitch throughout the enrollment process. she spent ours -- hours on the phone with call center workers, only to find out that the call center workers were as bewildered by the website as she was. several times she was cut off after holding for over two hours. mr. speaker, i would surmise that members of this congress get frustrated when holding for a few minutes for anything. two hours. repeatedly. cancer patient. can't get coverage. eventually she had to enroll via the united states mail. this is after taxpayers and future generations, for that matter, since we borrow 40% of what we spend around here, paid nearly $500 million far website that was supposed to handle a relatively simple signup process. believing she had successfully enrolled, janet submitted the appropriate payments for her

obamacare coverage. she paid for it, mr. speaker. unfortunately, janet did not receive any confirmation that the payments were received or that she actually enrolled in her plan. adding to the uncertainty, neither obama's bureaucrats nor the insurer can verify her enrollment now. despite efforts, my staff could not get an answer from me the bureaucrats either, because of how the law was designed. meanwhile, janet continues to receive notices that payment is due, adding insult to injury, since she submitted her payment. it doesn't end there. she was also informed she could no longer continue cancer treatment with her doctor of choice as a provider would only be able to accept certain health care plans off the obamacare exchange. the plan she chose did not qualify and it was virtually impossible to verify this during the enrollment period. janet will have to continue her cancer treatment at a new doctor several times per week, thankfully she's allowed to do that, but that doctor is a

60-mile round trip drive. obamacare has only served to exacerbate already trying and complicated health care issues with bureaucratic red tape and customer service so terrible it's one only this federal government can provide. leek many hoosiers, janet was misled by obama care's proponents. her choices have been severely limited and she is hardly able to shop around for a doctor she's comfortable with. this is not health care reform. obamacare is leading to a health care crisis. i've continued to receive stories and i know you do as well, from hoosiers about how obamacare has misleadingly -- is misleadingly done, the complete opposite of what was promised. insurance policies continue to be canceled. premiums are skyrocketing and deductibles are soaring. choice has been reduced, not amplified.

specialty services are an increase -- are in increasingly short supply. in other words, they're being rationed. i will continue fighting to repeal and replace this insidious law for people like janet and millions of americans in similar situations. i want to thank mr. perry from pennsylvania for yielding such time and i yield back to him. mr. perry: thank you, mr. rokita. with that, i rise to talk about an issue that maybe is unknown to many members, many citizens, but should be known and so that is the reduction of forces, reduction in capability of our military services across all branches, across the whole spectrum and how that process is going. it's been my studied opinion at this point that the process is what we should discuss at this time, a process that's lacked transparency a process that has lacked deliberation. now, while i believe, it is

this member's belief that the chiefs are under -- and d.o.d. -- is under significant pressure from the administration to defend this nation, it is also under significant pressure to make cuts and not only to make those cut bus to make the cuts in a very particular way which is part of the discussion today which is the cuts to the reserve forces and before i recognize some of my colleagues i want to provide definition from the joint staff, the definition of the operational reserve which is your guard and reserve. as such the services organize, resource, equip, train and utilizer that guard and reserve components to support mission requirements, this is important to the same standards as their active components. to the same standards. which is interesting to me because some of the recent reports and quotes i have heard are things like, it is structured to be complementary and capabilities in its three components are not interchangeable so that statement flies in the face of

the original definition of what guard and reserve forces do. . and saying that guard and reserve members only train 39 days a year which, again, i think the chiefs are under considerable pressure. d.o.d. is fighting for its life. not among its members but in my opinion against an administration ander in' doing what they have to do, but i joined -- i'm an army soldier. i joined an army of one, not an army of some of us get this and some of us get that. we all do the same work together at the same level and that's the expicketation, as it should be, but -- expectation, as it should be, but that's what we're going to discuss for the next hour. i reserve the balance for myself whatever time i might use but at this time would like to recognize my colleague and friend, mr. dent. mr. dent: thank you very much, representative perry. i want to first by thanking congressman perry for his service in the pennsylvania

national guard for sometime. he's very committed to our country and committed to the guard. i really commend him for putting this on. also want to commend his chief of staff, colonel lauren muglia, who's also an active guardswoman, i should say, and very proud of her service up in lebanon county, pennsylvania, the national guard center up there which is located in my congressional district, a very important asset to this country's homeland security, emergency preparedness as well as any other missions that would be called upon them. but a few things i wanted to say about the guard very, very quickly. the army's plan for the national guard includes frankly drastic plans, to slash the corps structure, in-strength and put the guard on the back shelf as a strategic reserve. i'm very concerned about this and i know many of my colleagues are. congress has made a very significant investment in the guard over the past 12 or so

years to train and equip the guard as an operational reserve. at a time when the pentagon must dig very deep for savings in their programs and agencies, the guard remains a valuable investment. we have to make a lot of very hard choices in the appropriations committee with respect to how we allocate our resources, very limited resources and the defense department is coming under a great deal of stress. but i want you to consider this. the most recent report of the reserve force's policy board, the rfpb, concluded that a national guard member cost about 1/3 of their active component counterpart. this would translate into nearly $2.6 billion of savings for every 10,000 positions shifted from a full-time to a part-time status. what's more, the army national guard provides 32% of the army's total personnel and 40%

of its operating force while only consuming 11% of the army's budget. that represents a value to this country and frankly to the taxpayer. and i mean no disrespect to anybody, but i think we have to understand the real value of this national guard to the taxpayer. the air guard, the air national guard provides 19% of the air force's total personnel and 30% to 40% of its overall fighter, tanker and airlift capacity, and 6% of the air force's budget. i would also say that many of those air national guard, many of those pilots are very experienced, have many, many hours of service and so i think we should also acknowledge how experienced those folks are. in conclusion i just want to say not only does the guard provide this operational asset to our overall national security and defense structure but just as important it provides an emergency preparedness homeland security function that they have to help us deal with all the time.

in my state it's usually floods and weather emergencies and the guard plays an absolutely critical role to help us during those times. they have that operational component, help us, obviously contribute significantly in the wars. we've seen this way, too, if you've been to afghanistan and iraq and i know some of our colleagues have served there and paid very high prices and we've seen how integrated our guard and reserve units are with regular army and regular air force units so i'm very proud of that service. o finally, again, that duo mission, they can help us fight wars and a critical component to our homeland security, emergency preparedness strategy in this country. with that i want to yield back to, again, colonel -- i should say, mr. perry, congressman perry, for his leadership on this issue and i really appreciate that he put this special order together. thank you. yield back. mr. perry: thank you, representative dent. appreciate your comments and

appreciate -- i appreciate your support for our guard and, again, that is the discussion. the discussion about a process that should be open, that we should have a part in. what we would ask at this point is that the d.o.d. not proceed with the plan until they've had input from everybody involved, which includes our nation's guard and reserve includes hometown heroes that serve right in every single town, every city, every village across the country and serve their nation and serve their nation well and have been 50% of this nation's wars in the last 10 to 15 years, 50% of the fighting force. why haven't we been included in the conversation in a meaningful way? with that i would like to again represent another colleague of mine from pennsylvania, mr. rothfus. mr. rothfus: thank you, mr. speaker. i'd also like to thank my good friend and philadelphiao pennsylvanian, mr. perry -- fellow pennsylvanian, mr. perry, for hosting this discussion. as congressman dent noted, really it's colonel perry who in 2008 left the comforts of our country to serve in iraq

and also his chief, lauren, also with the national guard, who went overseas for our country. i rise today in support of the pennsylvania national guard. in particular the brave soldiers who serve in the first 104th attack reconsauns battalion based in johnstown, pennsylvania. their future, like that of many other national guard units across the commonwealth, is being placed in serious rep ar diaz part of the army's most recent force structure plan. major general wesley clark for the pennsylvania national guard put it best when he wrote in a letter to the editor that recently appeared in one of our local newspapers, the johnstown tribune democrat that the first 104th is under attack. in fact, major general craig's letter incaps late this issue incapsulates this issue so well.

the pennsylvania national guard first 104th we consauns may lose their apache helicopters and a number of them could be furloughed if the army has its way. these are the same highly trained soldiers who recently returned from a year-long deployment in afghanistan where they provided aerial support using ah-64 apache helicopters fighting side by side with their active component counterparts. the army wants to restructure its aviation fleet by divesting itself from key with a helicopters and replacing them with apache helicopters taken from the army national guard. consequentially, the removal of 24 apaches from our inventory from johnstown will render the 104th a nonmission capable force when it comes to defending our nation at home and abroad. in turn, the army proposes to replace the apaches with only 12 other aircraft, a 50% reduction in the number of aircraft that we have in johnstown. detrimental actions like this prove that the national guard is still considered second rate

by the active component, despite the guard demonstrating its competence and effectiveness over the last 11 ears of war. taking away highly trained personnel and equipment from the reserve component which costs a fraction of what it does in the active component to operate does not make sense for our community, commonwealth or country. major general craig concludes, having worn the uniform for more than 40 years i, too, have been trained to fight and fight i will for the skilled and courageous troops of our nation's reserve forces. signed, major general wesley craig, agent general, pennsylvania national guard. let's commit to working together to ensure that the national guard units like the first 104th continue to receive the support they have earned and deserve. i thank the speaker. i yield back.

mr. perry: and i thank the gentleman from pennsylvania. at this time we're going to talk a little bit about aviation and guard aviation in particular because it's something that i've been familiar with since the mid 1980's when i first went to flight school. it's one of the issues that has become the forefront of this discussion and this argument, as mr. rothfus has noted, the drawdowns and the cuts to guard aviation and the claim or the charge that the guard is not trained, accessible or ready. and with that talking about my short time in iraq and serving with the finest aviators from alpha 106 from indiana, a group of fine people under my command in the task force that had been to iraq many of them before and told me the stories of their time there before and they were just above reproach. they were the most professional

and well-trained individuals that were competent to do the mission from the day they showed up on the ground and they proved that every single day for a year. and with that i would like to recognize my friend from the great state of illinois who also served with those fine individuals from that very company and has sacrificed greatly for our nation who had' like to discuss this -- who'd like to discuss this issue as well and that's congresswoman duckworth. ms. duckworth: mr. speaker, 10 years ago my national guard aviation battalion was deployed to operation iraqi freedom. we performed missions ranging from forward refueling point operations to air assaults all across the battlefield in iraq. we were so effective that the multinational forces headquarters assigned us to help active duty aviation units to fly their missions as well as our own. yet when we first reported to core nate these missions, --

coronate these missions, our counterparts said, well, here comes the j.v. team. despite this less than well -- less than friendly welcome, my guard unit seamlessly integrated and carried out not only our own but their active flight missions as well. in the process we gained trust and mutual appreciation and respect. we've come so far as a nation and as a military. for 12 years our guard and reserve units have fought side by side with our active duty counterparts in combat zones all over the world. this nation spent precious blood, sweat and treasure to build a fully interchangeable, cost-effective, operational reserve that has been key to our successes in defending our nation against all enemies, foreign and domestic. to squander this investment and

divest our training and equipping of the reserve forces is a huge disservice to our taxpayers and to our national security. the guardsmen is twice the citizen, relied heavily on by our governors and our generals alike. they respond whether the duty station is a mountain pass in afghanistan or the flooding banks of the mississippi river. the guardsmen is 1/3 the cost of an active duty soldier or airman. the guardsman is the least expensive asset our military has and a critical and complementary component of our overall force structure. we are a better nation with a better military than to dismantle the sacrifices made on the battlefield with false claims of national guard and reserve's lack of capability. for 22 years i've served in the reserves and in the guard. the last eight years of which without pay. i certainly have devoted much more than 39 days a year to serving my nation as a military

pilot and so have my fellow guard troops whose sacrifices and capabilities are often underrepresented and underappreciated. i urge my colleagues to join me in helping preserve the operational capability of the guard in this year's national defense authorization act. i yield back. mr. perry: thank you. at this time i would also like to turn to my colleague from mississippi, mr. palazzo, for a few comments. mr. palazzo: well, i thank the gentleman from pennsylvania, as he's being called today, colonel perry, for yielding some time to me. mr. speaker, the recent comments by army leadership are as ridiculous as anything i have seen in quite sometime. in a transparent effort to protect their own, they have effectively thrown the men and women of the national guard out with the bath water. it is a fact that the average national guardsman cost 1/3 what his active duty counterpart does.

now, i ask the american people, what is the better investment here? given these brave citizen soldiers a pink slip is not only ridiculous from a readiness standpoint but it amounts to throwing away billions of dollars and hours of training. here's your pink slip. thanks for all your hard work, but we won't be needing you anymore is basically what they're saying. mr. speaker, i believe that the men and women of our national guard are not only the smarter financial decision, but they have also earned their stripes over the past 12 years at war. i know that the men and women i serve with and those who come from all over the united states to train at camp shelby before deployment are some of the most capable airmen and soldier ever produced, regardless of what general odeer noah has said. these are the best-trained, most battle-hardened force the national guard have seen in

their 300-year history. they have fought alongside active duty personnel. to put them back on the shelf not only wastes that but does nothing to deal with the biggest threat to national security, that's our national debt. meanwhile, some members of the boddy are content to watch the national debt climb on the back of runaway entitlement spending that continues to suck away resources from every sector. we're cutting right to the bone from our best capabilities. i honestly have trouble believing that army leadership truly thinks the best way to handle budget pressures is to gut our military capability but that is what they are doing. mr. speaker, i promise that if the army and president bring this half-baked idea to us here in congress, i will do everything along with my colleagues, in my power, as a member of this house and a member of the house armed services committee, to assure it is soundly defeated. with that, congressman, thank you very much for putting on

this special order and i yield back. the speaker pro tempore: thank you, mr. speaker. i thank the gentleman from mississippi for his comments. again, we're not saying that the guard and reserve isn't willing to do its part. it's my belief, it's this member ose belief that d.o.t. and the chiefs are under significant pressure from the administration to do what they're doing. we're asking for an open process and to be involved in the conversation because we want to do our part. but we can't watch the investment that was been mentioned here today be eviscerated, be thrown away, be cast away like so many things. we understand very clearly over the course of this last five years this administration's tenor and attitude toward the nation's fighting forces but we must continue on for the sake of what we have invested in and the sacrifices made by members of our hometowns in the guard and reserve. with that, i'd like to yield some time to the fine gentleman from illinois, mr. enyart. mr. enyart: i thank the gentleman.

mr. perry and i might debate about the causes for the budget cuts at the pentagon and for the reasons for the budget cuts there but what we do not debate and what we stand shoulder to shoulder on, is the fact that the army national guard, the air national guard, is the best-trained, best-equipped, best led national guard force that we have ever had in our history. i had the honor, before i came to congress, of serving as the adjew tant general, demanding the 13,000 army and air national guardsmen of the great state of illinois. and unfortunately, what has happened as the drawdown has started to occur, the pentagon has put forth a plan that would slash the army national guard. you know, the army national guard, and for that matter, the

air national guard, today we're specifically talking about the army but every remark i make applies to the air national guard as well. the army national guard serves as america's insurance policy. it serves as the shock absorber for the military. we can't maintain a large enough military to answer every contingency. that's why we have the army national guard and that's why we have the army reserve. those are the soldiers we tall -- we call forth when we need them. when we don't need them, they train at home. 2005, in iraq, 51% of the soldiers in iraq were army national guardsmen and reservists. over half. army national guard and reserves. yet today, folks in the pentagon want to slash the army national guard. you know, we had a blizzard in

illinois last week. that blizzard was so bad that interstate 57 at its juncture with interstate 70 in effingham, illinois, was closed. there were six jackknifed semi trucks, snow blowing, 35 below windchill factor. that blizzard was so bad that the wreckers couldn't get through. that blizzard was so bad that the snowplows, from the illinois department of transportation, could not get through. who got through? what did the governor do? the governor called out the illinois national guard. he called out those battlefield wreckers that serve the purpose in battle of going forth on the battlefield and pulling humvees and other army vehicles that are damaged and inoperable off the battlefield. those eight wheel drive

vehicles could get through that blizzard, they could get through those snow drifts. they rescued those hundreds of stranded people in those 375 cars and six semi trucks on interstate 57. now, you know, that equipment, that's wartime equipment. you know what the folks over in the pentagon are arguing today? they're going to strip every single a.h. 64 attack helicopter out of the army national guard. saying, well the governors don't need them. what do you need an attack helicopter in the illinois national guard or pennsylvania national guard or any other national guard and illinois doesn't have an a h. 64, so i -- an a.h. 64 so i don't have a dog in this fight. the pentagon is saying you don't need them. what's the first maxim you learn in the army? you train as you fight. you have to train as you fight so you know what you're doing

when you go into battle. that's why the army national guard needs attack helicopters. so they can go into battle with them, they will train with them so they can fight with them. based on the army's logic, the illinois national guard wouldn't have had those battlefield wreckers to go in and rescue those people. we can't let this happen to the national guard. you know, i went to the retirement ceremony for lieutenant general bill ingram this week. he was the tag of north carolina. we served together as tags, him in north carolina and me in illinois. he got promoted to general, i got demoted to congress. his retirement ceremony, he got up and spoke. what was the first unit that the army called up out of north carolina in 2001 when we were ready to go to war? it was the attack helicopters.

the a.h. 64's. they were the shock absorber. they were the insurance policy for america. you know, while we're talking about, about the pentagon, when you look at the pentagon today, you look at the ktive duty military establishment, we have more generals and admirals today than we had in world war ii. we have an army of less than 500,000 people, in world war ii it was about five million, today we have more generals. every one of those generals and active duty has a staff and they have trucks and drivers and so on and so forth. 250 now, they have 250 -- one and two-star generals serving active duty in the army. we have now, division, you need to understand, a division is commanded by a two-star general.

is anybody in here besides representative perry and representative duckworth know how many active duty divisions we have in the united states army? we have 10. 10 two-star generals. we have 250 on active duty. before we start cutting the soldiers who go out onto the battlefield of a blizzard, operating that battlefield wrecker, pulling people, saving lyes, doing that double duty, doing that double duty of saving lives in floods, blizzards, and hurricanes, as well as deploying to afghanistan, maybe we need to look at cutting some of the fat, some of the excess, some of those excess two-stars. that's what we need to do. we need to preserve our insurance policy. we need to preserve that best trained, best equipped, best led national guard force that has fought for us not only in afghanistan, not only in iraq, but also on the home front. one last pitch for the illinois

national guard. we have had illinois national guard soldiers on duty 24 hours a day, 365 days a year, in the battle, first in iraq and then in afghanistan, every day since we went into iraq. every single day. national guard soldiers. so to those folks over in the pentagon who think that national guard soldier are second class soldiers, i've got a few brave people i'd like you to meet, one of them is sitting right there, lieutenant colonel tammy duckworth. thank you, mr. perry. mr. perry: thank you, mr. speaker. i thank you, mr. enyart, for your service to the nation both in the military and here in congress. it's my intent to bring a different standard of decorum and bearing to the discussion, again, we understand that d.o.d. is under significant pressure and fighting for its life. we would like a place at the table to have the discussion because we don't think a

proportional cut, if you're cutting 100% you say 50% to the active component, 50% to the reserve component is the same thing. it's not the same thing if the reserve component costs one third and yields the same results when you have those service members on the battlefield. we're going to continue the discussion but at this time i'd like to recognize the gentleman rom florida, mr. yoho. mr. owe hoe: i'd like to -- mr. yo hoe: i'd like to -- mr. yoho: i'd like to thank mr. perry for talking about the importance of the national guard. my district is home to a training center and 2,000 national guards men and women and their family. we in in the third district of

florida, as well as the whole state, are proud of the national guard and their service in the past, especially in recent years in the wars in the mideast. they answered the calls and performed admirably. it's a cost effective force that's integral to the effectiveness of the united states military. over the past 12 years, congress invested billions of dollars to train and equip the national guard as an operational reserve. it would be a disservice to the taxpayers and to national security to squander this investment away. they are that well regulated militia, the minutemen, of our nation, which is necessary in order to have a free and secure nation. they are ready when called upon to aid our nation in the times of need. be it national security or for national disaster. they answer the call. we must ensure that their effectiveness and readiness is

not adversely affected by a lack of foresight. we are proud of all our guardsmen and women and must not forget the great sacrifices they have made in defense of our nation and again i want to thank my colleague, mr. perry, for arranging this special order. thank you for your service, too. mr. perry: thank you, mr. yoho. to continue the conversation i'd like to recognize the gentlelady from the great state of arizona, ms. sinema. ms. sinema: thank you for hosting this special order. unfortunately, these days in washington, there are too few issues that bring republicans and democrats together to find reasonable solutions to the challenges facing our country. but supporting the national guard is one issue that certainly brings us together which is why i appreciate the opportunity to joan my colleagues today. the united states needs a fully functional and operational national guard. the active military and national guard may have different attributes but they train and certify to the same

standards and guard units and personnel can function interchangeably wither that active duty brothers and sisters. we rely on the national guard to protect our country overseas and here at home. arizona has a proud tradition of service and we are proud of our fellow arizonans who become citizen soldiers. sin september 11, over 12,000 members of the arizona national guard have deployed and we have 150 members currently mobilized. not only does the arizona national guard deploy overseas, it has a critical mission here at home, responding to natural disasters, improving border security and performing counterdrug operations. the arizona national guard is also leading the way in helping our citizen soldiers and their families balance the collages of services -- of service with civilian life. under the leadership of lieutenant colonel denise sweeney, director of arizona's national guard total force team, the be resilient program

is promoting mission readiness and retention by increasing the resilience of each service member and their family. the total force team focuses on coordinating the efforts of all resilience and support programs for national guard members and their families and leverages public-private partnerships to engage the broader community. it's strengthening service members and their family and is another example of why the arizona national guard is so important to our state and why the national guard deserve ours full support. i support a defense budget that responsibly uses taxpayer dollars and keep ours country safe and secure. but i have serious concerns that the proposed cuts to our national and reserve component would undermine the ability of arizona's national guard to perform its critical mission. substantially reducing the size of the national guard and in particular, removing all helicopter attack aviation could hurt arizona and our

national security. you can't build emergency response, combat, and leadership capabilities overnight. we will continue to call on our national forward in times of need and we should make sure they have all the training, tools, and force strength to answer that call. . i understand these soldiers and their families make great sacrifices to serve our contry. we should stand up and support these brave committed men and women and give them the tools they need to keep us safe. thank you, colonel perry, for hosting this time. i look forward to working with my colleagues on this important issue more. mr. perry: thank you, mr. speaker. i thank the gentlelady from arizona and would also like to commend her on her comments regarding the guard. and specifically for me as an army aviator, one of the main topics of discussion in the reduction of forces in the guard is army guard aviation. and where comments that quite frankly are disappointing and

hit my heart or that gartsmen train 39 days a year. -- guardsmen train 39 days a year. but i would suggest to you that i know very few, i don't know one single guard member that trains 39, only 39 days a year. as a commissioned officer who is on flight status, i spent the bulk of my time during the two days a month and 15 days a year commanding, doing administrative things, leading my troops, planning for the future, planning for their training. the other time i came in at least once a week if not more often was to get my flight time because i had the exact same requirements. it's important to note when folks say, well, they are not as trained and not accessible and not ready as active components. it's not to take anything away from the active component, because they train every single day, but i will tell you this, i have the same standards, require the same amount of flight hours,

same check rides, flight evaluations, the same physical requirements every single year as an active duty aviator. if aim a gun pilot i must do gunnery. if i'm a utility pilot i must use sling loads. flight night vision goggles so i'm ready to go. indeed we are ready to go every single time. i think about people say well, why do we need attack assets? why do we need the a-64 apache in the guard? i'm not sure quite honestly from the standpoint of are you protecting your state that we need that apache, but i will tell you this, most guard units are replete with former members of the active component. they did their time on active duty whether it was six years or whether it was 15 or 18, and then they came to the guard. they enhanced their skills. as a matter of fact on active duty, when you're down range, over the wire and serving with active duty members and guard and reservists, oftentimes if

given a choice to fly with members of the guard as opposed to active duty, many active duty components would choose to fly with the guard members. there is one simple reason, it's because the active duty component even though they are serving all day long, every day of the year, as a captain you are administering your administrative duties, you're leading your troop, planning their training, but you're not flying. so the bulk of the experience and doing the job of flying the aircraft is actually in the guard. if you have a choice between flying with a captain and a lieutenant who have 800 hours between them, or flying with a guard cw-4 and captain that have 35 to 4,000 hours between them in difficult terrain, difficult conditions, what would you choose? the mechanics that work on these aircraft don't work on them just a little bit an then move on to something else. they work on these aircraft for 20, 30 years at a stretch. so they know every single thing

about them. they live with them. they sleep with them. and oh, by the way, many of these folks are active guard and reserves. so it's not just 39 days a year, and not only more than that. it's every single day of the year. and that's why the guard and the reserve are ready to go when called upon and people will say, you're not ready to go. you got to go to a m.o.g. site and train before you go. as a battalion commander who went through that, i was ready to go. i met my minimums and i met every single requirement that the active component met. so did all of the members of my unit. men and women who had served for years and years. but when they send you to a place like that, they give you a unit from illinois, alaska, a unit from oregon, unit on active duty, unit from the reserves. you haven't worked together. you got to spend a little time figuring out your s.o.p.'s, standard operating procedures, so you can work together. that does take some time. i would also say that sometimes the guard and reserve, things

are placed upon them for training purposes that the active component says we need when we would argue we don't need. they slow us down from getting to the fight. as an aviator i wondered why i had to get into the heat trainer. i had to do rollover drills in the humvee. i'm not driving a humvee around the streets of iraq or afghanistan. i'm flying an aircraft. that's where i should spent my time -- spend my time. but the active component says you have to do this. we get that, they want to us have that training, we get it. our core mission, the things we do, the things the taxpayers pay for is exactly the same. for an army aviator in the guard, as an army aviator serving on active duty. it might not be the same for an artillery man or infantryman, it might not be i don't know because i don't serve in those branches, i know my branch. i would say each of us have our strengths, we recognize that. we recognize the active component strength.

i think in my heart the active component, d.o.d. recognizes the strength of the guard, but it would be my contention that d.o.d. is fighting for its life. not against its brenten -- brethren that's serving an army of one, but against an administration who arguably doesn't have the same view as many of those who serve and many americans that support their armed services of the armed services. so they are in a difficult position. i think about when they say we are not ready to go. the eastern army aviation training site located at fort indian town gap where i serve, the folks that serve there work every single day. they train army aviators. that's -- when you leave for the rucker -- fort rucker and need to get an advanced aircraft, you come east many times, and learn to fly a chinook, learn to fly a blackhawk. they don't do that at fort rucker in many cases. your advance training happens in the guard. that's where that experience is. not only is it the same aircraft

that many times the active omponent's flying, but the e folks oftentimes train even more advanced aircraft than active components flying. i think of those guys out training the special operations guys and the f-model chinook. these are guard folks training the active component to do their mission. and not just any active component, special operations, the best of the best. guard folks are training them. i don't want to lose sight, i don't want anybody to lose sight of that argument and that discussion. i'm not saying again that the guard shouldn't do its part. we are ready to do our part. we understand that the budget's tight. and that changes must be made, but we are asking again for an open and a transparent conversation that meets the standards of decorum and bearing that we have so come to love and one of the reasons why many people serve in our armed forces. we want to be, i want to be an

army of one who doesn't fight with its brothers and sisters on the active component. as a task force commander i was privileged, and i mean well privileged, to command a task force of 800 to 1,000 souls that included national guard, active component, reserves from continental united states, from places in europe, all fine individuals working under one command and one mission with one standard. so i'm concerned when i hear that the chiefs are being put into, in my opinion, a position to say that the guard and the reserves are lesser. because it is my experience that they are not. it is my experience when soldiers are serving side by side that they don't see and they don't recognize and they don't notice any difference. they do their jobs. and i don't want the chiefs to be put that position, we are asking, we are pleading through this with the administration let's have an open process. let's have one that is transparent. let's have one that we can

engage in a conversation because if the guard costs 30% of what the active duty costs are, then a proportional cut really isn't proportional. if we offer things that is important to the nation as is evidenced in the last 10, 15 years of war, 50% of the component fighting those wars not only in just logistics but in ken netic activity, engaging the enemy in close combat, tools of the trade, your guard and reserve, those men and women, they go and some of them don't come home. their sacrifice is just as important as those in the active component. so it would be my contention, mr. speaker, that we need to slow this process down. it needs to be opened up so that everybody can see. and so that everything can be evaluated and that the guard and the reserve can do its part but shouldn't have to do more than its part. and the nation's investment in

this readiness you find in your states that comes to play when you have storms, when you have natural disasters, comes to playwright then, that that readiness isn't lost and the days of the strategic reserve are long in the past and that we don't go back to that failed model, and we don't draw down so significantly that when we have a new administration, the american taxpayer will be asked, well, we are not ready to fight. we are not ready to meet our constitutional obligation to defend this nation, and now we must spend more money to get back to where we were. we don't have to do that. by this administration's actions right now, we are making a conscious choice to reduce ouriedness -- our readiness without justification, without a conversation. while some will say that it's too expensive, we have an obligation. it is expensive, training and eequipping is expensive and there is a great deal to be had in the guard and reserve. again i would like to have a

discussion that honors the decorum and bearing that all service members are bound to. mr. speaker, one of the members of this esteemed body would like to make comments today on behalf of the guard and reserve, and the fighting forces in general, and that is the fine gentleman, mr. joe wilson, from south carolina. he's offered his comments for the record and i'd like to have them submitted for the record. mr. speaker, in closing i appreciate the time that the nation has taken to listen to this argument. i would ask that you call, that you write, that you email, that you cord -- correspondence with your -- correspond with your representative and this -- and this administration when you talk to them about having an open process by which we have to make changes to our fighting forces and to the defense of this nation, but let's have it opened, let's have an open process, let's have a candid discussion, let's not pit one brother, one sister against another in this fight.

we are all on the same team. let's not do that. let's have an open conversation and let's make the best arrangement we can that serves both the guard, both the reserve, both the active forces, and in particular the defense, the necessary defense of this nation. with that, mr. speaker, i ask unanimous consent that all members may have five legislative days to revise and and include remarks extraneous material on the subject of this special order. with that, mr. speaker, i yield back. the speaker pro tempore: without objection, so ordered. under the speaker's announced policy of january 3, 2013, the chair recognizes the gentleman from texas, mr. gohmert. or 30 minutes. mr. gohmert: thank you, mr. speaker.

i appreciate so much my dear friend, mr. perry's, last hour almost talking about such an important issue. i know there are those who say the number one job of congress is to create jobs. i think more appropriate reading of our constitutional duties is number one, we are supposed to provide for the common defense. and every american should do as george washington prayed that we would, to never forget those who have served in the field, and that includes -- that is our military men and women. , butof whom have given all all gave something. that was washington's prayer at

the end of his resignation as he resigned as commander of the revolutionary forces, something that that -- that had never been done before, and it's my understanding has not happened since. as a leader in the malvids island said a few years ago, unsolicited, he said we have never had a george washington to set the proper example, so we are always worried about a military coup, and unfortunately have had one. what a blessed nation we are, for people like george washington who were raised up in the time they were in, and abraham lincoln speaking more than once about the need to help those who have served a

and their widows and orphans. so it is particularly dismaying when congress passes anything that does not properly honor and address the issues of those who have served in the field and as we've talked about before, followup and fulfill our obligation to keep our promises. this government promises individuals, you come into the military and you serve until retirement, here's what you'll get in prurn -- we should not break our promises to those who have served, risked life and limb to protect us. and just as my friend marcus atrell said recently on cnn, basically, that they didn't go on the mission in afghanistan

senselessly, that it's not senseless when someone hears the call, receives the order of his country, and acts in accordance with their order, win, lose, or draw and that's the mentality. my four years in the army, probably two and a half was under commander jimmy carter, a year and a half under commander in chief ronald reagan. the last year and a half was far better because we had a commander in chief that truly appreciated more the opinion of those who were serving in the eld and restored honor for the military. president carter, obviously, from his background, had

respect but you sure couldn't tell it from the actions when we were in the military. and as a result, our reputation suffered around the world. we had an act of war on our embassy in tehran and other than a scaled back rescue attempt, scaled back by the hite house itself, we were embarrassed. and it's still used for recruiting today among radical extremists, muslim brotherhood members abroad who say these guys don't have the back bone to do what's necessary to win. and in such an important time in this world, where so much is at risk, to have an administration and some in the house or senate that think it's ok to break our word to our

military, we've got to turn this around. to those who think it's ok, we need to make clear, mr. speaker, it's not ok. we have the moral obligation to keep our promises. and to do everything we can to protect those who are protecting us and to never send them into harm's way unless they've been given authority to win. that should have been the lesson learned from vietnam that wasn't learned. the lesson was not that we ouldn't win, we could. and as sam johnson says in his book, points out in person, after his seven years in the hanoi hilton, much of it in complete isolation, brutally

treated, after carpet bombing north vietnam for two weeks, which could have happened many years before and ended the war commander at ve the hanoi hilton, laughing, saying, in effect, you stupid americans if you'd just bombed us for one more week, we would have had to surrender unconditionally. so -- that's the way it should be. we should not get involved anywhere where we do not give full authority to those in our military to go kick rear ends, win, and then come home. n an article today by crystina wong from "the hill" publication, headline, "pentagon's hands tied on hunting down benghazi attackers."

this article says the u.s. military cannot hunt down and kill people responsible for the deadly 2012 attack on an american compound in benghazi, libya, as long as the terrorists are not officially deemed members or affiliates of al qaeda, newly declassified transcripts from congressional hearings show. -- this le goes on , quote, es on to say in other words, they don't fall under the aumf, the authorized use of military force, authorized by the congress of the united states so we would not have the capacity to simply find them and kill them either with a remotely piloted aircraft or an assault on the ground, unquote, dempsey said.

thear talking about general dempsey in his testimony before the house armed services committee. and those were the transcripts that were released. but he's chairman of the joint chiefs of staff and here's ere i've become amazed how this administration could think gives e aumf somehow this president authority without consulting congress to o over and bomb and have our military play an active role in taking out gaddafi, provide weapons to libyans who very well may have been used to help attack our consulate, by the

way, in benghazi. we don't know enough to know for sure but good chance. we were given the weapons. but how this president this administration, thinks you can o over and go to war against gaddafi who had become an ally after he got scared enough after envation of iraq that he just opened up all of his weapons systems, became an ally, and as some moderate muslim leaders in the mideast have said to me, he wasn't a good guy but he was one of your good friends after he got scared of you in 2003 and some have said he was doing more to help fight terrorism in that part of the world than anybody besides israel and yet you bomb him, you give weapons to go against him, we don't understand you. but this administration felt like under the aumf it had full

a hority to go in and attack place where even the secretary of defense said we have no national security interests in libya. oh, sure, the organization of islamic council, the 57 states that make up that organization, sometimes confused with the 50 states we have here in america, but that 57 states that make up the o.i.c., they wanted us -- wanted taos go in and take out gaddafi because they didn't leek him because he was fighting terrorism and radical islam and the muslim brotherhood. but how would an administration, how would a chander -- commander in chief have authority to go in libya and then when we find out there are people that still want to destroy america, kill americans, destroy our way of

life, slid you say, but we don't really have authority to go after people who have declared war on us, have committed an act of war in attacking our embassy, but we're not sure we can go after them. that did not seem to stop this administration and the president from issuing an order o murder, to kill, a guy i awaki, fan of, anwr al a u.s. citizen because his parents came over on a visa, he was born here, and then went back and was taught to hate america. even though earlier, in the bush administration, he came to capitol hill, led congressional muslim staffers here in prayer on capitol hill, even though he had contacts within this administration, visited with people in this administration's

government, for some reason, couldn't see the need to arrest him and put him on trial here in america. they thought it would be better just to hit him with a drone attack in yemen and kill him over there. and i'm not finding fault necessarily, that's a different debate, over whether presidents should order a drone attack on an american citizen without a trial, my point is, if this administration felt like the of the authorization uniform military force, that allowed him to take out an american citizen in yemen, then how is it this administration all of a sudden gets scared and says, gee we might violate the aumf if we go after the people that telled our ambassador in an act of war against u.s.

property which was our consulate in benghazi. i think it's helpful to read directly from the language. it's something i was extremely concerned about and a number of my friends here have been extremely concerned about, it's why we've pushed amendments to rein in the presidential authority to go after american citizens and we worked on language, passed language, to affect this, to prevent any u.s. president, whether it was former president bush while he was still president or this president or future presidents, it would prevent them being able to just arrest an american citizen and hold them indefinitely, we put restraints then president. here's the language that now general dempsey and this administration say, we just don't really have the authority

under the aumf to go after the guys that assassinated our ambassador and killed three others including two former navy seals and took much of the leg of a former army ranger that was on the rooftop with ty woods and glen doherty. here's the language. it says the president is authorized to use all necessary and appropriate force against those nations, organizations, or persons he determines planned, authorized, committed, or aided the terrorist attacks that occurred on september 11, 2001, or harbored such organizations or persons in order to prevent any future attacks, future acts of international terrorism against the united states by such

nations, organizations, or persons. we've had people that took that this id, gee, you know, guy didn't help plan 2001's 9/11 attack. we had him around washington, leading prayer here's on capitol hill, having contacts with this administration, but gee, they didn't have a problem using this language to kill an american citizen in yemen, not because he participated or helped plan 9/11, 2001, but simply because they were using language here in the last pardon that -- or harbored such organizations or persons in order to prevent future acts of international terrorism against the united states by such nations. so that's been interpreted by this administration for a long time now, gee, you didn't have to participate or help plan

9/11, 2001, but if you did anything to aid, abet, assist, encourage, in any way any of these organizations that may have participated in some way in 9/11, 2001, then president -- then the president can do whatever he needs to with military force to, as it says, to prevent any future acts of international terrorism against the united states by such nations, organizations, or persons. this wacky could have language used to take him out with a drone attack, then under this

administration's definition and usage of that language, should have authorized him to go after people who declared war on us and committed an act of war against our enemy or harbored such persons or under this administration's definition and and we already know, everybody but "the new york times," everybody knows that the organizations, that some of the organizations that participated , 2012 attack, the act of war on our consulate in benghazi, were affiliated with l qaeda. an organization that did participate in 9/11. these organizations, that participated in 2001, they certainly were working with them. anyway, it just seems to be contradictory for the administration to use the aumf to possibly exceed their

authority to kill people abroad, and then turn around and hide behind it, and perhaps if dr. gates had not written a book he did and given us insight into things that are said or not said in this administration, then maybe we wouldn't know as much, but since we now know that even the secretary of defense and our top generals can feel the president's doing the wrong thing but not have the guts to tell him to his face, then, i don't know. perhaps possibly general democracy's in that category now. maybe he's one of those that fits in the category of maybe knowing something is appropriate but instead popping those heels together, salute, yes, sir, and never fulfilling their duty, not just to follow orders, but to give helpful information to a

commander above you, in this case the commander in chief. this article says, the u.s. could seek to capture the benghazi attackers under the existing aumf but it would need to rely on forces in libya or any other countries where the attackers are hiding to do so. isn't that interest? because that's not what this president did to kill al awaki, just killed him. didn't rely on any yemen force or anybody else. just took him out with one of our drone bombs. now all of a sudden they want to hide behind this lang wam, actually we can't do -- language. actually we can't do that. is that our excuse now for why after a year and a half, i feel sorry for the president because basically he wasn't going to rest until we got these guys, and so, a year and a half is a long time not to rest. this article says, democracy's classified comments highlights

the limits of the existing authority which was proved by congress after september 11, 2001, attacks and the difficulty of fighting a constantly evolving enemy that in al qaeda has inspired interpent terrorist groups try to murder american forces and civilians. they even give military authority to hunt and kill those responsible for the 2001 attacks wherever they are and allowed president obama to authorize hundreds of drone strikes against yemen, somalia, and libya. has been used to authorize several special operations raid such as the one that took out osama bin laden. see the article just accepts what the administration says. general democracy said, apparently in his testimony, oh, gee, apparently you can go after all these other people. if you can did after them, you can use the same language to go perpetrators of 9/11.

what's the administration afraid of? i keep wanting these questions asked. i think we need a select committee to ask these questions. why don't you just come forward, all those in the administration that have information, why do you keep polygraphing our intelligence agents who knew what went on in libya and what was going on in libya, why do you keep polygraphing them to make sure they are not talking to congress or somebody else? why don't you just let them tell members of congress so we have better information from which we can authorize other actions and appropriate money to help with those actions. why don't you just come forward, tell us what was going on? why don't you try for a change being the most transparent administration in history? a long way to go, but maybe it's ine to start t it but we are a war, as others have so

appropriately said, apparently we have been in a war since 1979 when radical islamists committed the act of war against american property, which an embassy belongs to the country, the soil is considered to be the country's -- the country that occupies that embassy, you commit an act against that, military act, hostile act, it's an act of war. so we have been at war since 1979, the trouble is until 9/11, 2001, most americans didn't know we were in a war, only one side knew we were in a war. that was borne out in 1993 when our marines, over 200 marines were killed in beirut, by bombing, the truck bombing that came in there. , many acts of war, violence

including 1993 world trade center bombing. including the two embassies that the clinton nder administration, although perhaps some in the administration might be tempted to ask, as secretary clinton asked not that long ago, what difference at this point does it make how or why they were killed basically in those embassies? well, it makes a difference because we can prevent them in the future if we know why they were killed and what went wrong in the present. but it's a mystery. why hide behind the same aumf as an excuse not to have brought the assassins of our ambassador to justice? and something, i heard a former

j.a.g. officer talking on fox news one night this week, obviously a smart man but an ignorant man. you can be smart and be ignorant. he was ignorant of the constitution because he seemed to think that the constitution requires you capture someone who has declared war on you, you got to give them all kind of access and let them send manifestos around. got to give them all kind of freedom, and that's simply not the case. some people that mean well but are ignorant of the constitution say everybody has to be treated exactly the same under the constitution. their constitutional rights mean this or that. not understanding that actually under the constitution everybody's not entitled to the same court. they are entitled to due

process, but actually that means different things. so in the army, in the military, i say the army because that's what i was in, but in the military constitutional rights are different. so you don't have the right to freedom of assembly. i wanted to claim that many times. we were ordered to be out for 5:00 a.m. forced 25-mile march. i wanted to claim, sir, i have a right to freedom of assembly whenever and wherever i want and i would rather not assemble for this 25-mile force march. or the -- i can't remember now, two five-mile runs, whatever we used to do. early in the morning before you even started the day. would have been nice to say, no, it would be nice to have freedom of speech so that as a member of the military we could have said what we really thought about

some of the president carter's orders, but he was commander in chief. and as it should be, you're not allowed when you are an active duty military to publicly criticize your command chain. in order to have good order and discipline, that's the way it needs to be. once you're not on active duty, you can say whatever you want. should be able to. without worrying about a drone aking you out. so constitutional rights are different when you're in the military. constitutional also makes -- constitution also makes clear that congress has the authority to set up the disciplinary system's the court tribunals for the military. makes clear that congress has the authority to set up different courts for immigration purposes.

entirely constitutional. so i get amused when some people that are smart but ignorant about the constitution start saying everybody in america has a constitutional right to be ied before a united states district court. that's ridiculous. there is not a u.s. district court that's even established in the constitution. that's completely up to congress. this congress has the authority to get rid of every disdirect court in america. get rid of every federal court of appeals in america. and just set up a whole new district court system. we have the authority to do that. as professor david gwynn used to say there is only one court in -- established in the constitution, all others owe their existence, their jurisdiction, the very being to congress. as bill cosby says, you say his daddy told him and his little brother, i brought you into this

world and i can take you out. well, congress brought these courts into this world and congress can remove them. we have that authority. so nobody has a constitutional right to u.s. district court. there is no constitutional creation of a u.s. district court. it's up to congress. so to have some former j.a.g. officer go on tv and say you got to give all these rights. no you don't. under our constitution if you declare war against the united states, we have every right if we capture you to hold you until the cessation, the stopping of the hostility, the war that you declared against us. and then once the war is over, we don't have to try you. convince your buddy, we'll let you send a letter to your buddies telling them stop the war so i can be released as a p.o.w. we don't have to release them if

they are part of a group that war with us. then when the end of hostilities comes and the war is over, then you don't even have to release everybody that was a p.o.w. if somebody you believe has probable cause is a good standard, believe they committed a war crime, then instead of just releasing them, send them home, you can try them for a war crime. i understand there are a lot of people in this administration that don't understand that part of the constitution. perhaps they got a bad professor at the university of chicago law school or somewhere and they don't really understand what the constitution actually says and doesn't say. but you can hold people indefinitely, and the supreme court verified that. you may have to give them a writ of habeas corpus hearing, but you don't have to let them go or send manifestos, we owe an obligation to protect this

contry. we have the authority here here in congress. that's what we should do. with that i yield back. the speaker pro tempore: for what purpose does the gentleman seek recognition for a motion? >> at this time i move we do now hereby aadjourn. the speaker pro tempore: the question sont motion to adjourn. those in favor will vote aye. those opposed will vote no. the ayes have t the motion is adopted. accordingly, the house stands adjourned until

>> after five years in office we know how the president can be when he's serious about something. you can hit the road. uses his bully pulpit and takes his case to the american people. if the president is serious in this mitment to getting important bipartisan legislation passed, he'll do the same on this issue. this mportant bipartisan legislation we are hopeful we can pass that bill this year. instead of work -- looking to work together, the president this week reminded people that he has, quote, a pen and a phone. i remind the president he also has a constitution and an oath of office that he took where he swore to execute the l faithfully

laws of our country. we have a system of laws and the constitution we are all required to abide by. there is no reason this year can't be a bipartisan year to work on the issue of our economy nd get americans back to work. i don't know what we have done in the past. i think we have done both in the past. when it comes to unemployment insurance, i told the president. now a month and a half ago that if he had a plan to extend emergency unemployment benefits, i consider it as long as it was paid for and if there were provisions we could agree to that would help execute the laws of expand the conomy and create more jobs.

i don't know what the history of that is. >> speaker boehner, you say you want 2014 to be a year of bipartisanship. it seems president obama has shown a new willingness to talk to folks in congress. he had senate democrats last night. would you be opened to reviving talks in regards to the debt limit and having personal one-on-one meetings with president obama in 2014 in bipartisan spirit? >> how many times have we talked about this? plenty. the president has not only made clear he will not negotiate on the debt limit, he's also made clear as have democrats here in capitol hill that they won't talk about our long-term spending problems unless the rbs are willing to raise taxes. republicans are not going to raise taxes. we find ourselves in a fairly difficult box when it comes to dealing with our long-term

spending problems. the president just won't do it without raising taxes. so not much really to talk about. >> you have been sitting back and waiting for a pay-for on the issue, there has been a debate going on in the senate and everybody's wondering if the senate does get something done if it's going to die in the house. are the pay-fors you see getting closer in the senate? >> i have made clear if the president had a plan to extend emergency unemployment benefits, let's not confuse that with regular unemployment benefits, we would consider it. but it had to be paid for and there had to be measured agreed to that would actually help grow the economy. i have not seen a plan -- not seen a plan over the last six weeks. >> my question is, whether the senate is something that could pass the house? something like using sequestration shavings? >> i have seen dozens of ideas over in the senate.

i have no clue what they are close to or aren't. >> just curious, mr. speaker -- >> oot young lady in the back. >> would you encourage your members to have them pay for that -- >> each of the members decide that, but i think the governor made clear that mistakes were made. i think he held people accountable. he's apologized. time to move on. >> we have another vote on health care. why haven't republicans gotten behind something to say this is our health care plan and what would that be and go ahead and try to solve? >> the republican house members will be having our retreat about a week and a half from now. it's one of the big issues for conversation in terms of our agenda for this year. and i think you'll see republicans come forward with a plan to replace obamacare, a plan that will actually reduce cost for the american people and

make health insurance more accessible. >> i was just curious, how many of your members -- how many members of your caucus have actually read the omnibus? this had been passed so quickly it's quite likely many have not. the other question i have sir is tucked inside that omnibus is about $62 million for a somebody called usec which does uranium enrichment. you have been supportive of this project in the past. that company last month announced plans to file tore bankruptcy. how do you explain that? how does that money get spent for a company that's going bankrupt? >> that's all different types of bankruptcy proceedings, but the issue in ohio is a uranium enrichment facility with new technology. there's been a bipartisan effort to proceed with this research they are doing. when it comes to the omnibus appropriation bill, listen, this is not the way i would want to do business. i'm a big believer that we ought

to have regular order. and what this bill does is begin the process and getting us back to regular order. it's much -- having an omnibus appropriation bill is a much better vehicle for us to outline policies to the administration than continuing with the so-called continuing resolution to just fund everything we funded the year before. not preferable, but -- >> we'll break away from our recorded coverage here with speaker boehner and take you live to the state department for comments from secretary john kerry. >> straight from here over to the white house for a meeting, but i will have an availability tomorrow in the morning when we have our friends in mexico here and i'll take a couple of extra questions to make up for not being able to answer some here now. i know that many of you have been asking about some of the

recent revisionism as to why the international community will be gathering next week. let me make it clear here today. from the very moment that we announced the goal of holding the geneva conference on syria, we all agreed that the purpose was specifically and solely to implement the 2012 geneva one cune kay. -- communique. that purpose, that sole purpose could not have been more clear at the time this was announced, and it could not be more clear today. it has been reiterated in international statement after international statement that the parties have signed up to. and venue after venue, in resolution after resolution, including most recently in paris, last weekend, when both the london 11 anti-russian federation reaffirmed their commitment to that objective.

the implementation of geneva 1. so for anyone seeking to rewrite this history or to muddy the waters, let me state one more time what nengeevea 2 is about. -- geneva 2 is about. it is about establishing a process essential to the formation of a transition government body, governing body with full executive powers established by mutual consent. that process, it is the only way to bring about an end to the civil war that has triggered one of the planet's most severe humanitarian disasters and which has created the seeding grounds for extremism. the syrian people need to be able to determine the future of their country. their voice must be heard. and any names put forward for leadership of syria's transition

must, according to the terms of geneva 1, and every one of the iterations of that being the heart and soul of geneva 2, those names must be agreed to by both the opposition and the regime. that is the very definition of mutual consent. this means that any figure that is deemed unacceptable by either side, whether president assad or a member of the opposition cannot be a part of the future. the united nations, the united states, russia, and all the countries attending know what this conference is about. after all, that was the basis of the u.n. invitation sent individually to each country, a restatement of the purpose of implementing geneva 1, and attendance by both sides and the parties can come only with their acceptance of the goals of the

conference. we, too, are deeply concerned about the rise of extremism. the world needs no reminder that syria has become the magnet for jihadists and extremists. it is the strongest magnet for terror of any place today. so it defies logic to imagine that those whose brutality created this magnet, how they could ever lead syria away from extremism and towards a better is beyond any kind of logic or common sense. so on the eve of the syrian opposition coalition, general assembly meeting tomorrow to decide whether to participate in geneva in the peace conference, the united states for these reasons urges a positive vote. we do so knowing that the geneva peace conference is not the end but rather the beginning, the launch of a process, a any kind

logic or common sense. so on the eve of the syrian opposition coalition, general assembly process that is the best opportunity for the opposition to achieve the goals of the syrian people and the revolution. and the political solution to this terrible conflict that has taken many, many, many, too many lives. we will continue to push. in the meantime, for vital access for humanitarian assistance. i talked yesterday with russian federation foreign min stiff -- minister in an effort to push harder for access to areas where the regime play games with the convoys, taking them around the circuitus route instead of directly in the way that the opposition had arranged for and was willing to protect them in. it is important that there be no games played with this process. we will also continue to fight for cease-fires where we could achieve them, and we will continue to fight for the exchange or release of captive journalists and aid workers and

others in order to try to improve the climate for negotiations. obviously none of this will be easy. ending a war and stopping a slaughter never is easy. we believe, though, this is the only road that can lead to the place where the civilized world has joined together in an effort to lead the parties to a better outcome. and to the syrian people, let me reiterate the united states and the international community will continue to provide help and support as we did yesterday in kuwait where we pledged a $380 million of additional assistance in order to try to relieve the pain and suffering of the refugees. we will continue to stand with the people of syria, writ large, all the people, in an effort to provide them with the dignity and the new syria which they are fighting for. thank you.

as i said i'll be happy to answer questions tomorrow. hanks. [captioning performed by national captioning institute] [captions copyright national cable satellite corp. 2014] >> he'll have more about the talks tomorrow at the state department. meanwhile the house has just finished up work for the week and the next 10 days or so. today passing a bill dealing with the health care law and reports on weekly healthcare.gov enrollments. the house also this week passed the omnibus spending bill funding the federal government through the rest of the fiscal year. the end of september. that bill is now on the senate floor. you can follow that debate on c-span2. here on c-span in about an hour we'll take you live to the pentagon for the briefing with the spokesman, john kirby. until then we'll hear from the democratic leader of the house, nancy pelosi.

>> good morning. >> one of the big differences between democratics and republicans is our attitude toward america's working families. democratics have always been committed to them and respect them for their strong work ethic and are there to help meet their needs when through no fault of their own they lose their jobs. yesterday house democratics moved for the third time to force a vote on extending emergency unemployment insurance that millions of americans rely on for support of their families as they look for work. and yesterday for the third time, house republicans blocked he house from even considering extending this essential lifeline.

more than 100 members have sign aid letter by congressman gary peters calling on speaker boehner to cancel next week's recess until congress sends the president an extension of this essential emergency support. republicans keep the house in session, drop their immoral opposition and work with democratics to secure security for millions of unemployed americans and their families across the country. republicans in the house and senate are abandoning the 1.5 million americans, that is how many now are losing benefits, and counting those who are realing from being just giving up looking for work because there are no prospects. we need a strong jobs

initiative. the president has put them forth over and over again. republican version of a jobs initiative is a tax break for the wealthiest people in america or a special loop hope for a special interest. men and women who work hard and play by the rules and lose their jobs through no fault of their own deserve the respect that democratics extend to them. now thanks to republicans callous disregard, these people are losing their emergency unemployment insurance too in addition to losing their jobs. it's unconsciousable that the ouse is being sent home. it seems like we were just out and came back for a little bit, by e bit of a drive congress. is it irony or sorry this is the week we celebrate the life of

martin luther king, jr., one of the champions for economic justice, without having acted on this urgent matter. 72,000 more americans lose their emergency unemployment insurance every week. failing to extend emergency employment insurance will cost the economy 240,000 jobs this year. it doesn't matter where you are across the nation, one thing always stands out, the incredible work ethic of the american people. it's remarkable. i have the privilege of traveling constantly throughout our country and it is palpable the work ethic of the american people. the productivity of our workers has sored but their paychecks have not kept pace. stagnant wages and widening income inequality are hurting families, holding back our

conomy and eroding the basic american principle of respecting work. yesterday on martin luther king's birthday, it was actually his birthday yesterday, we had a conference with the secretary of labor and some hardworking americans joined us to discuss how important it is to raise the minimum wage, to restore fair tons hardworking meand women across our country. secretary perez quoted dr. king from 19 eff when dr. king declared we know of no more crucial civil rights issue facing congress today than the need to raise the federal minimum wage. it was true then, it is true now. raising the minimum wage to $10:10, still lower than what we have in san francisco, would

give a long overdue raise to 28 million hardworking men and women, create 85,000 new jobs, lift more than 4.5 million americans out of poverty, help feed, cloth and shelter more than 14 million children. people working full time should not have to raise their children in poverty. it's amazing because just the consumer aspect of raising minimum wage and how that creates more income which will be spent immediately because we're talking about a low wage, not a living wage but a minimum wage. that of course, is how it creates jobs. the american people know raising minimum wage is the right thing to do for working people. recent polling shows an overwhelming majority of voter support. 71% of american voters support

raising minimum wage, even 52% of republicans out there support raising the minimum wage. our nation should honor it. it always has working families. unfortunately instead of acting to create good paying jobs for hardworking americans, republicans in congress as opposed to the septemberments of republicans outside of congress, republicans in congress are continuing to waste time with their 40th vote on the affordable care act. republicans should stop trying to sabotage the affordable care act. it's time for republicans to end their fixation and start working with democratics on the priorities of the american people. creating jobs by extended emergency unemployment insurance, raising the minimum wage, meeting the needs for all

americans to participate in the prosperity of our great country. on a positive note, speaking of critical issues, i want to say i am pleased with what i see as bipartisan progress that is being made on addressing the voting rights act. i think we're going to be hearing announcement about that later today. i'm not hear to announce it but i'm hear to say that from what i've heard in meetings and briefings we've had, while it's not the bill that everyone will love, that it is bipartisan, it is progress and it is worthy of support. with that i'd be pleased to answer any questions you may have. no questions? thank you. >> your colleague announced his retirement this week and there have been other democratics that

have decided not to seek reelection. how confident are you you can recapture the majority? une equaledthe just contribution of george miller to the house for 40 years, came as a water geath baby and here 40 years later he is saying enough. yes it is a loss to the congress, it's a loss to california and the country. but retirements are really personal and family decisions as is running for congress. i always say watch the holidays. that's what we'll get the announcement of who is going to run or not run because that's when families come together. george miller's district is a very democratic district as is jim moran's. we are sorry he is leaving. they are ready for another

chapter in life. it's not about whether we twin house. it's about their family decisions. we are sorry to lose jim. they are valued members of our caucus. i think the republicans have many more retirements than we do and i think we probably have better prospects in some of their districts than they do ours. i don't think this relates to our democratic retirements do not relate in any way to our prospects for winning. we are on a good path. we just saw the results of last we've eports and seriously outraised the republicans. that means our grass root supporters are thuske about our prospects. we outraised them by $14 million. imagen the minority party -- we even out raised ourself from two

years ago. money is a statement. if we weren't doing well, you would hold us accountable but we are doing well. it's an eloquent statement of strect strength a bank statement s. the caliber of candidates we have running are excellent. i'm not here to talk politics but we can have another session to go over each of the races and you can see why democratics are on the miths i can about our prospects and we've met our critical imperatives on where we need to be on a path to victory. >> on healthcare, there are some democratics who have expressed some concern about the law and the idea of having to be able to market it and deal with their district. there was a report yesterday that was critical of the chief of staff wasn't getting what some of these moderate

democratics have to say about the law in their district and so on s. that a problem for democratics? >> no. >> the affordable care act -- again, thank you for giving me the opportunity to say. honors the vows of our founders, the liberty to pursue your happiness. not chained by a policy but free to follow your passion. you want to be a writer, self-employed, start a business, change jobs. it's unfortunate about the technology on the rollout but the legislation and the law that it now is is very strong. it sits right there as a pillar of stability for america's families with social security, medicare, medicaid and the affordable care act. we feel very strong about it. some of the people have a problem with it didn't vote for it in the first place.

i'm not saying that's kurt but nonetheless i think with all due respect to your question, it's a mall piece of a very big transformative initiative for our country that will succeed. >> on the omnibus appropriations bill is being called an early trourn order. to what extent to you think all 12 appropriations bills can be produced out of the house before the end of september whand potential stumbling blocks do you see? >> i hope it is a return to regular order. doing an omnibus is sort of regular order. we would have rather passed each of the bills individually. if that had happened we would ave had a stronger labor hhs education piece to it. that is a place we could have

done much better in the omnibus. the republicans wanted to put it on a train leaving the station in a bigger package so the public could not see the impact of the number they assigned to labor hhs. but confer rees worked hard to use the resources that were there in a good way. we should be doing much more for e national institutes of health, great science. we're only going to be to address a small part but the list goes on. we are always optimistic we can have regular order and that would be what we prefer. a full decision of each bill as to what is it at stake in voting yes or no on different aspects of it. but let's be hopeful. 'm an prorpeyate or the.

we all understand -- we like the appropriations committee to be viewed as a non-partisan arena where we have legitimate debate on what is good and what public policy the funding makes to improve the lives of the american people. i know that the prorpeyate or thes would be interested in regular order. so are we. >> the unemployment insurance you talked about today. how much do you think voters in november will be looking at that strikes u think it people? >> all of these questions are sports. et around to so i'll put my bracelet right out there.

joe montana's jersey, number 14. whether it's immigration reform, whether it's background checks, whether it's raising the minimum wage, whethers the unemployment insurance extension, we would ather have all of these pass and make progress than not and have an issue in november. for us it's so urgent, so immediate. quite frankly for me, when we left here in december without passing it, i think most of us thought when we come back in january they will do it right away and it will be retroactive and it will be off the table. that's why i said, one of the biggest decippingses between democratics and republicans is

our concern for american working families. they have been clear they don't intend to take this up. unless there is a great deal of public pressure for them to do so, it won't happen. i in no way want this to be an issue in november. i want this to be an exent history by then. by the way, for every dollar spent injects $1.52 into the economy. it is a stimulus. not the kind we prefer but it is a stimulus. we would rather them pass merican jobs, make it in america, buy american bonds. we rather they pass those kind of initiatives alongside this so we are creating big initiatives on jobs at the same time we are correcting some of the ongoing fallout from the recession. your question i respect but i ope this is long gone by

election time. so what are the prospects? as i say, anything can happen. the seahawk fans are feisty and they are not selling tickets to anybody from california. you have to be from cspan.org, lasssca or washington. ey like -- or gone, alasssca or washington. the marries are making an ice cream bet. we have a chocolate bet with members from washington state and that's in addition to enjoying my chicken for the last week from north carolina which is lovely that i told them i was going to accepted them chocolate anyway because they were such good sports for the north carolina game.

who knows? we'll see. we feel -- we love our his erback, theta toose on arm -- the tattoos on his arm. >> it is interesting to see, one year ago we took our two their 15, grandsons christmas, everything combined took them to the super bowl. now we have the five and six-year-olds who want to go to the super bowl. we'll have to see how that goes. it's mazing what a difference a sunday makes. we'll find out on sunday how it goes. the world of sport is a beautiful thing. it's so much fun. it's not political. it's just great. it's aboutal president and skill.

what i like about it, it's about numbers. i love numbers. because that's fact. and of course who gets the most at the end is the winner. for us it's a sad thing because our stadium is being shut down. candlestick park. it was the park where willie mays came to play baseball in the 1950's. it means so much to us but it has gotten old and now the giants who started in california candlestick have moved to their own stadium which is wonderful, come see it. and now they are going to a new stadium. still the san francisco 49ers. so this bracelet has the old adium and new stadium, joe

montana's jersey, the football, the helmet. what more do you want? >> [inaudible] >> they did. and then they moved. and some of our members in california went there. the mayor used to have something for football where little school kids could go for like $.50. they were building a fan base then and there. i assume you have no more questions. i hope i see you next week. i hope we are still here. i'm not that optimistic but we should be here doing the people's business. we should be here passing unemployment insurance for

starters and working on all of the other issues like voting rights and immigration and raising the minimum wage, a farm bill. >> $8 billion cuts over ten years is the number [inaudible] >> some will, some won't. i am hopeful we can get a farm bill. you know how important it is to our economy. think of being a californiaian but you could substitute many other states. no farm bill or immigration bill is devastating. that is two things that are urgent for many communities that have agriculture and tourism and technology and the rest. we would hope that in just a very short period of time we can say that this legislation has become the law of the land. thank you all very much.

> leader pelosi from earlier today. they have wrapped up until they return for legislative worked. e state of the state address from michigan. tomorrow president obama lays out his proposals on government surveillance programs. we'll have his remarks live at 11:00 a.m. eastern. >> as the president first stated in march and re-emphasized tuesday night the goal of the united states in afghanistan and al qaeda to defeat and its allies. the international military

effort to stabilize affering is necessary to achieve this goal. > robert gates served two.s as defense secretary and c.i.a. director in the 1990's. on c-span 2 a live book tv event. he talks about his management of the wars in iraq and afghanistan and his relationship with the white house and congress. in a few weeks look for bonn any morris. she'll take your questions and comments february 2 and noon eastern. and online for the rest of january, join our book tv book club discussion on the liberty amendments. the book tv.org to enter chat. >> coming up at 3:00 p.m. we'll take you live to the pentagon kirby. iefing with john

meanwhile jack lew urged congress to increase the debt ceiling and not wait until the last minute. we'll show you as much of this as we can until the pentagon briefing gets under way. >> welcome everybody. we're going to go a few minutes later than planned and we'll have a good opportunity for a robust question and answer session so please be thinking of some robust questions as we go along in your conversation this morning. just a reminder this is on the record. when you ask your questions, i'll ask you to identify yourself. if you can put your ringers off on your cell phones and put it on stun or whatever setting you have, that would be very helpful to us. since we have a lot to talk about, let's jump right into it. >> thank you very much for joining us. this feels like a historic week.

it's not quite like a moon landing but we appear to be close to having a budget which is an unusual thing for the united states of america. it's not without a stop gap or so. but looks like this is going to move fairly quickly now. i wonder if you can talk ability how this might affect business -- about how this might affect business confidence going into 2014, how it affects your outlook on growth of the u.s. and do it in the context of this strange number we got on jobs in december which seemed like it was out of the ordinary from the trend line which had been quite positive, a weak number in december, if there is something that worries you in it. >> it's good to be here. thanks for doing this. i think we're starting the year off strong. we are starting the year off with economic tail winds, not

head winds. i'll get back to the specific number you asked about. i think we're starting out with congress following through on the end of last year which was trying to get back to some kind of normal si and away from the brink manship and uncertainty that was causing a great deal of impact to confidence of the united states and internationally. obviously we are not out of the woods completely. we still have a lot more to do to keep our economy growing. if you look at the last half year, the trend of economic statistics, job strategies, confidence have been strong. it's been strong across sectors and there is potential for more growth in key areas. i think the mood in washington makes a difference in two different ways.

the policy actually matters. the budget agreement which is being implemented through these appropriation bills takes away some of the drag from the economy. matters. going from policies that push back economic growth to creating economic energy help. but the question of business as usual versus dysfunction is extremely significant. just a few months ago we had a government shutdown. we were in the midst of a cries si over the borrowing authority of the united states. and it was very undermining of confidence. the reason we are not out of the woods completely is that as long as we have so many americans looking for work, our job is to focus on more jobs. we still have deadlines looming in washington. our borrowing authority runs out again january 7. at that point congress has to

act. >> tell us about december, about what happened with the jobs number. >> i have spent most of the last three and a half decades advising policy makers not to react to each month to month number too strongly, to look at the overall pattern. we will only know in several months exactly what that number means. i've read enormous range of views as to what the number means. the trend that has been clear for several months, i don't think one ought to look at a number that deviates from that being in and of itself proof that there has been a fundamental change. economies don't turn on a dime. so all of the evidence that there was strength in the economy is still there. and our job is to make sure we promote more growth, more investment. >> there are things we can do. will is a debate in washington now about whether or not to

extend unemployment benefits. you can look at that in two different ways and both are right. one is a question of simple fairness. people looking for work, out of work because of the deep recession that we took a long time to come out of, they need the help. you can also look at macroeconomic question. all those people looking for work are also putting food on the table and taking care of the necessity of life and every penny they get they spend and that is economic activity. i hope we get back to the discussion of how to extend unemployment benefits. we can get into discussion of other things we can do. but the more we do consistent with the spirit of the budget agreement that take step after step to make progress, the better the economy is going to be. you look at the budget agreement, there are things as people focus on them, there is funding for manufacturing

centers, there is funding for early childhood education. there are things that will be good for today and the future of the american economy and we can continue to take steps along that path. what the infrastructure needs this this country, it would help in the short term and long term. >> there have been good numbers in the past few months, export growth numbers were good. one number in december that was consistent with previous months is the erosion of the denominator in the unemployment calculation. that is people leaving the work force, giving up looking for work. how does that affect your growth forecast for 2014? are you still expected to be in the 2% range? >> we'll come out with our new economic projections in a few week when is the budget comes out. i'm not going to thrift curtain early on them except to say we ended the year --

>> just between us. >> we ended the year with confidence that the economy was doing better and we start the year with confidence it's continuing to do better. the long-term unemployment numbers, the labor participation numbers are serious and we spend a lot of time pouring over them and ask what is causing it and what are the policy responses. there are a lot of competing explanations, some of them demographic, some of them cyclical and some structural. >> people getting older? >> people getting older. it's been a long slow recovery from a deep recession. so there is a delay in some of the employment growth. but it's that structural piece we have to worry about. we have to ask ourselves if somebody graduated from high school or college and didn't go to work, what can we do to make

it easier for them to get started? what can we do to take away the skill gap that may be presenting them from getting started and what can we do to work with employers to take away stigma from not having worked for a period of time. if you graduated college or high school when unemployment was close to 10%, it was really hard to get that first job. nd the fact that you are now delayed in getting started is something we have to worry about how do you catch up. that's a question of public policy and a question of working with the private sector to make sure that employers are thinking about how do we give those kids a chance. >> you mentioned february 7. that's another stumbling block for the economy. it's the debt ceiling deadline. having been through this drama a couple of times now in the last couple of years and seeing the effect on confidence, the

economy, the markets, wouldn't it be in the treasury's interest to say here is our battle plan. if this goes to the wire again, if it's a cliff hanger, these are our priorities for spending, this is how we are going to martial our funds, we'll buy enough time past the end of february, not just for a couple of weeks to see the economy through. don't worry markets, don't worry consumer? >> i don't think any treasury secretary of either party has ever said don't worry about what happens if the united states loses its capacity to borrow. it's something to worry about. if we ever get to the place where the united states cannot keep all of its obligations, we are fundamentally hurting our standing as a country that's always honored all of its obligations. i don't believe there is any plan that could give the kind of

confidence you are describing. people ask legal questions about what do you have the ability to do. and i'm asking the more fundamental question why would anyone want to hurt the u.s. economy and the recipients of payments they are entitled to because of a self-inflicted wound, because of something that everyone knows the obligations are not made when the borrowing authority is raised. the obligations are being made when you vote on appropriation bills and tax bills. in the end, the borrowing authority merely allows you to operate under the policy decisions you've made. >> the spending you've already done? >> the combination of policies. now this is congress' unique responsibility. congress is going to have to act. it is not something that anyone should want to repeat the kind of hair raising brinkmanship that causes real uncertainty and

anxiety in market participants and normal consumers. if you went outside of washington in october, it didn't take very much to get people to be worried about what was happening and what was going to happen. people worry about what happens if payments aren't made, what happens if there is an economic fallout that undermines their stability, their employment. these are not things that congress should play games with. it has to be done the sooner the better. we get into a washington parlor sport of trying to figure out the precise moment when is the last minute. it's a mistake to go to the last minute. the buildup to the last minute causes damage. it's a mistake to wait until the 11th hour. congress should do this as quickly as possible and with the least drama as possible.

i will say in terms of how long congress has, aye communicated with congress saying we thought that the ability to manage through the debt limit being hit on february 7 would get us maybe to the end of february or early march. it's a very unpredictable time of the year in terms of cash flow because people are filing for tax refunds. when you start paying tax refunds, it's a time of year when money goes out. a month later when people are paying their taxes, money comes in. you cannot get from here to there without extending the debt limit. i think that if congress is looking at the numbers the way we are, we have the best data, they would see that they would be looking more at the end of february than anytime in march. >> let's talk about the global economy since that has such an impact on if health of the u.s. economy.

have you just been recently in europe. you did a trip to china and japan and asia a couple of months ago. you've been counseling the europeans to spend more domestically as opposed to export. that souppeds like john snow saying the same thing to china a few years ago you need to build up your domestic economy. the germans said leave us alone, mind your own business when you said that. can you walk through what is happening starting with europe. is the crisis abaiting to the point you can see growth? >> i think if you look at europe now compared to europe in 2012, there has been a huge amount of progress. we don't have to werery from day-to-day about -- worry from day-to-day about a half dozen countries. but they are not completely out of the woods.

they are looking at having turned the corner from minus to neutral or small positive. there is inconsistency as fragmentation in the financial markets, there is different rates of potential growth in different countries. our message in europe has been that you need to do what you can do to get overall growth in europe to a higher level understanding that not every country has an e equal capacity. there are surplus countries that have the capacity to invest more and create more domestic demand that. would be good for europe's economy and the global economy. let me put some pieces into perspective. this is how i think about the global economic recovery. we are now in a growth place that many in the world envy. we're in the 2's. people are talking about can we

hit three. they are trying to get to one. there is a decimal point behind the numbers they are looking at. in our most optimistic projections, we can't make up for europe falling half a point or a point behind where it should be. we can't make up for china falling behind where it should b. when i talk to my colleagues around the world i say we're going to do our part. we're going to keep our economy growing. we're going to shoot for targets that outperform people's expectations but you have to do the same. for europe that means countries that have surplus doing more to stimulate investment and demand. if you look at the german coalition agreement and the policies they are putting in place, they are doing more. they've made a commitment to invest in infrastructure here. i wish we could do that here. it would be good for the united states as well. you look last february, march, april, the discussion was should

countries in europe that have to meet fiscal consolidation targets do it more quickly? they've eased the time horizon. i think we've made progress. if you look at the questions of banking reform, they've made progress. but in each case there is more to do. our conversations, we have friendly differences of view on occasion. but i think they have impact. and we are pushing for more because more is good for them and it's good for us. you flip to china, it's pretty much the same story. when i meet with my chinese counter parts i am pretty confident they are intent on the path of economic refomple that they describe. at the -- reform that they describe. at the same time, i am not confident about the time frame or which targets will be

sequenced early in the kauai. we continue to bring an awful lot of focus on the need for market determined exchange rates, on competitive market determination of allocation and price of capital and i think that they are going to move in that direction and our interventions will be designed to speed that process up. it's good for china's economy. we're not asking either europe or china to do things that aren't in their own interest. >> one of the areas that still needs to be resolved is financial regulatory reform, we're five years after the crisis and there is fundamental disagreement between europe and the united states over banking requirements, the levels of reserves, even executive pay

between britain and the rest of europe with the u.s. why can't this be resnolved we are five years -- resolved? we are five years into the crisis. europe needs to have that confidence in its banking system for its economic well being. is this financial regulatory protectionism in a way playing out, we don't want to restrict our banks if you don't want to do the same thing? >> this is very difficult stuff. we in the united states have made enormous progress itch meanting financial reform. internationally we have made and are continuing to make progress. my objective in the g-20 is to bring additional focus to the international -- >> the meeting next month >> >> yes in australia. the g-20 and the financial stabilization board are the

places where the international community comes together to have conversations about harmonizing standards. just this last weekend some significant progress was made in terms of international standards on capital and leverage. for the last year there has been an argument about whether or not our differences were as big as people said or not as big because of differents in the way we calculated. i must say as somebody who likes to be able to compare apples to apples, when you have conversations where people are talking past each other because one is looking at a set of numbers on a net basis and the other on a gross basis and trying to do the conversion in your head is almost impossible. there was an agreement to doug: on a standardize -- do it on a standard diazed basis. that opens the path to finalize

rules consistent international standards. i made clear as we engage in conversations internationally, we cannot weaken standards to get to international harmonization. this has to be a race to the top, not a race to the bottom. we should harmonize them to eliminate confusion especially when it's technical differences as opposed to policy differences. when i look at the challenges ahead, i also look at what we've accomplished. there is much more capital in united states banks and globalbacks. we have put in place a resolution program that is something that the world is seeing as a model where we do stress test. we have living also. and we're seeing those become things that other regulators

around the world are trying to put in place. we have country so we pass rules. we have multiple regulators and it's sometimes a challenge to get our regulators to the same place. we've been doing a lot of work to get them to put frth consistent standards. you go to europe and you have multiple countries and multiple legislators that have to take action after there is an agreement in the larger group. we are very sympathetic to the challenges of coming up with policies. at the end of the year put in place a mechanism that is new and important. it is a path towards over a period of years having a fund that banks contribute to that is loosely modeled on our fdic. we don't think it's big enough or fast enough. as i look to the future, the challenges of 2014 and beyond have to deal not with what were

the risks in 2008, but what are the risks in 2014 and beyond? we are focusing heavily on shadow banking. >> banking that happens outside of decpwhrsh outside of the regulated banking system. >> money sloshing around that is not -- >> there is a natural shift of money from the more controlled environment to the less controlled environment and the risks are not always as visible because of a lighter regulatory presence and because of a lower set of requirements. so that is an area that we are focusing on. my international colleagues also are focusing on it. we have made progress. we can make more. cross border resolution. this gets to your question about the differences of standards. we learned from the collapse that the problems when a major

financial institution fails don't respect international boundaries, the transactions don't live within one country. the implications don't live within one country. it's very important there be confidence when an institution fails, if an institution fails that the resolution internationally works because that's the way you can avoid the domino affect that is an accelerant to a financial and economic crisis. we have more work to do there. we've made progress. we need to make more progress. china's tioned economic reform program. so far we've heard a fair amount of discussion of this and it's going to focus heavily on developing out the private sector of china. is that good or bad for american business? is that something that is going to be more inclusive of u.s.

business or are we seeing the cultivation of national hampions in china to the continued exclusion, not entirely but to the continued exclusion of a lot of involvement from the us, this anti-monopoly law to hammer foreign businesses is reminiscent of the problems that american businesses have. it doesn't feel like the situation is changing there much. >> well, the goal has to be to open markets and to have market forces determine the answer to the question that you are asking. if there are artificial barriers in place, then it's not really letting market forces work. i think we'll get some tests pretty soon. when we had our strategic and economic dialogue last summer, we had a set of important agreements come out of it. i was very pleased that china

moved on opening a shanghai free trade zone. they altered a policy of presuming industries were closed to foreign trade to presuming they are open unless individually closed. we have yet to see what the implementation looks like. if it opens up to real competition, that will be a meaningful signal. they go through the designations of what is open and what is closed, if you designate everything is closed, it doesn't amount to real change. it's still early. the direction of the policies that they announced was consistent with what they agreed to in our bilateral discussions. it'snk that they know that critical to the chinese economy to let market forces drive much more, if not all major economic

policy. they look at state own enterprises and they see built up inventory that has nowhere to go. they see empty buildings. they know that is not a way to maintain the growth they need for china to be where it needs to be in 2014 and beyond. now at the same time, transition is difficult in any economy. it's difficult in our economy, it's difficult in their economy. they are obviously concerned about the pace at which change happens and managing it. but trying to stop it would be very damaging to their economy and i think they know that. i can't tell you that at the end of this year, we'll be able to say they made the move we open hoped they would make. we are going to engage with them to keep pressing forward and making the case. i believe that is welcome. when i was in china just a few weeks ago, it was important for

the president to meet with me. we had an exchange that was our second exchange in the time i've been secretary. and when i meet with my counter part, we talk about the tough issues. they don't tell us to stay out of their business. they want to learn from our economic experience. i think our continuing to bring focus to these issues is something that helps them to make progress. i approach it in a very clear headed way. intentions are critical and important. but it's results in the theand matter. >> one of the pressures that might be brought to bear on china and europe are the two new trade agreements being egotiated now. can you get those tread agreements without fast track

from congress? these countries don't want to negotiate with congress people. they want to negotiate with people that can promise them the deal they are striking will be the deal put in force. >> we made it clear we think fast track authority is important and we are going to work with congress oh on it. i remember when we started working on the trance pacific partnership back in 2009, there were skeptics who said you can't start a conversation setting high skds with some of the smaller countries in the region and think that the big countries are going to join. the big countries are at the table and even bigger countries are continue plating coming to the table. >> japan is at the table and china has mused out loud about should they come to the table. that is an enormous change since

2009. the principle is setting high quality standards as the future of trade relations in the pacific and the atlantic has already moved very far. there are still tough issues to be negotiated. i've never been a trade negotiator. i would defer to people who have been successful in fact past. the tough issues are always resolved at the end. it's not as if any party before the final round of negotiations make the things that are really difficult for them at home. we have to keep driving forward and getting to the final tough issues and we have to lock in both trade agreements and fast track authority. we need to do both. >> let's get to some questions. and if i could ask to you identify yourself and who you are with. >> nelson cunningham mr. secretary good to see you.

last year in the president's bument for the first time that i can recall a democratic president proposed changing in entitlement programs sbind to reign in that growth. did it disappoint you that was not picked up by the other side and would you expect the president's budget this year to try to start that conversation once again? >> i think we ended the year and begin this year in a place where we've made some small progress but important progress, getting back to more normal way of congress doing fiscal policy, making budgets. and i think that is very important. obviously we started the year in a place where people were talking about a grand bargain. the president put out a budget that did have very tough policies in it, that are hard in terms of making changes to entitlement programs. he also had a tax reform program

that would raise revenues in a balanced way. we would have been able to put in place what was at the core of earlier negotiations he had been having with republican leaders. i have worked on these issues for most of the last 30 years would have hoped we could have reached an agreement. i thought then and continue to think that would be in the best interest of our long-term fiscal path and long-term economic path. i think that the president's budget will speak for itself in just a few weeks. i'm not going to get ahead of him announcing any of his specific policies. but i think he demonstrated last year in his budget that he remained committed to a fair and balanced approach to having long-term fiscal policies that keep us on the right path. and i think that last year's budget reflected a deep set of

conviction. >> from the "new york times." good to see you. i want to ask you about china and cyber, a big issue when the summit came up and continuing issue with your economic and strategic dialogue. the accepts that the snowden revelation have taken the pressure off of the chinese. it has given them a way to argue we are doing something akin to what they are doing and there is very little evidence that you see much of an abaitment of the kind of behavior you were so concerned about this time last year. i was wondering if you could give us a sense of where that is going? >> i have to push back on the premise a bit. i don't think there is any way to compare the kinds of intelligence activities that almost every country engages in

for national security purposes with the deliberate theft of trade secrets for commercial advantage. there is no comparison. i don't think that anyone credibly believes that there is a comparison and i don't think that the issue has in any way been taken off the table in terms of our conversation with the chinese. >> [inaudible] . >> we have been very clear. i can't tell you that they have done an about face. but i also think they understand that for them to play the role that they want to play in the world as one of the great powers, as one of the rule make rs for the world, you can't be a rule maker and engage in those kind of practices.

>> barry wood, mr. secretary what about the i.m.f. one for the i.m.f., the overdue payments all the other countries talk about. and what about boosting emerging markets in the i.m.f.? it's moved at a snail's pace. what's your view on that? >> i think the united states commitment to the i.m.f. remains solid. we're the biggest contributor and participant in the i.m.f. it's critically important to u.s. economic well being that the i.m.f. be strong and we have the kind of role we've had since its inception. in 2010 there was negotiation which i think made very important progress in terms of rebalancing some of the shears of interest in the i.m.f. while maintaining the u.s. position with a significant enough share to have a controlling voice on

important questions. i have made no secret of the fact i think it's critical for us to finalize the ratification of those. we made a full court press to get it done and got close but didn't get it done this past week. we are continuing to stand by our commitment and we will get it done. > yes, please. >> my question is about the role of money in the supply chains that enable mass atrocities like those in syria. some people have argued including some former treasury officials that the treasury ought to take stronger action against russian banks that are involved in financing armed shipments to assad. i wonder what you think about that? i know it could be awkward since

we are partners in trying to resolve the issue. >> we, through our responsibilities in overseeing the flows of financial funds and whether or not there is compliance with u.s. and international laws, we have been very aggressive. when things violate the law, we take action without regard to the home country of the financial institution. it does not always make us popular. friends who are very close and countries with whom we have more attention. our policy, whether it is sanctions regarding syria or countries, the designations are all the same but our policies are to be vigilant.