for schools and universities and such. my insurance premiums have gone to help subsidize people with families. i do not mind one little bit. i do not mind one little bit. we're forgotten the concept of society a little bit. guest: there are all sorts of subsidies. those are examples that we see all across society. younger people will be subsidizing the cost of older people if they buy insurance. that is part of the deal. younger people will be paying in i should say healthier people. we do not know the health status of these people. healthier people are paying in for protection. when they do have high costs, those costs will be covered.

in some cases the healthier people might be paying more. at some point, they may be a time when there is a car crash or they have some kind of problem and will need that kind of coverage. host: david in frederick, maryland. caller: hi, good morning. thank you for taking my call. i have some very quick points. i do not like the arm-twisting and the lies that have been coming out of washington. as a young guy, that just bothers me. that is not the way to get my attention. the advertisement do not sway me to get insurance.

my next point is that i am a tax repairer. i have to have multiple background checks. the navigators are able to take very confidential information and they do not have to have background checks. can you speak this dusty to that last point. guest: this is something that republicans in congress have raised, that navigators do not have to go through background checks. some states have passed laws with different requirements. this has been discussed. there is a lot of information that navigators get. they go through intense training. these are people who have been trained and vetted and are there to help people. host: david said he was not sure if he is going to get insurance. what is the consequence if they

do not want any part of it? guest: this could be a big problem for the marketplace. let's say the percentage of young people stays exactly the same. there has been a lot of researchers that do not think we will see the kind of death spiral that some people are fearing. that is where premiums continue to go up and that scares away healthier people who think it is not a good deal. every year you see higher and higher premiums if you are healthy people. what people have said is it is not going to happen here. there are a lot of protections in the law. there is a requirement that everybody buy insurance. subsidies encourage people to buy insurance. there is some financial

protections. the government covering the sickest cases and sharing the losses with insurers if necessary. and there is a protection so that plans to get a lot of healthy people will pay to those that get a lot of people signing up with very high cost. all those protections help quite a bit helping the marketplace from turning into this death spiral. there was any sting analysis put forward by the kaiser foundation. they found if the percentage of young people stays the same, about 24%, premium costs would go up, the cost including premiums and profits would be about 2.4% more than the

insurers revenues. that is a problem certainly. insurers have a typical 3%-4% profit margin. they can make it up the next year with slightly higher premiums. if the number goes up next year, 33%, then it is even less of the consequences. is a little more than 1%. it is something to watch. we might see slightly higher premiums next year. it will not turn into a catastrophe. host: jordan is on our line. caller: hi. good morning. and a lot of people i talked to said they are worried about the security on healthcare.gov because of hackers.

i know there were hackers who testified in congress. i just wanted to get your comment on that. a lot of people said that is the reason why they are not signing up for it. guest: this is something that did come up in congress. there was a lot of concern about this. the former chairman of the committee brought this to people's attention. a concern was that healthcare.gov was certified by temporary security basis. the administration said they were will protect people's information. they do this all the time with medicare. they have gone through different credentials to make sure people's information is protected. host: i want to ask about congress and what their role is likely to be. the house has taken a number of

votes repealing the affordable care act. what is the next frontier? guest: we are going to see continued attacks. this is something that is not going to end. republicans controlled the house and we will see additional votes. this will be a big issue in the election. i am sure we will see quite a bit of campaign rhetoric. host: dan is calling in from california. caller: good morning. i am calling from hawaii. aloha. i wanted to give the president much praise on obamacare. what's the difference between the v.a. health-care and obamacare? guest: they are very different systems. the v.a. system is so much to the british system.

what we are seeing with obamacare marketplaces or exchanges is private insurers like blue cross, blue shield or aetna or cigna, any of those companies offering private insurance that is government regulated. people choose among those plans and decide which one to buy. the insurance does have to conform with a lot of different requirements in the law. it has to meet certain requirements about the benefits and about how much of the cost is covered. you have seen that in the regulation in which there were four different tier levels.

in terms of the quality of care at the v.a., i think it varies by hospital. there had been complaints about the v.a. system but a lot of people say it provides essential care for them. host: so none of us would impact them. guest: if you get your care from the v.a., you will continue to do that. host: michael is 56 years old. caller: hello. thank you for taking my call. i got hurt about 20 years ago in a coal mining accident. i had to go on disability. i am on freedom blue, which is out of medicare. i have had eight major surgeries.

every time i go to the hospital now, i have to wait. i had a real bad ekg. they wanted to do a stress test right away. they made me wait a week. they increase my deductible. they -- we have a young child at home. my wife special care -- we went away health care service agent. they extended it to june, they said. we qualified for a silver plan.

they said that we could continue to pay our premiums, which went up $18 more than what the increase was in our benefits. i can't see where this is beneficial to us at all. that is what my comment is. guest: you said you could qualify for a silver plan, but the cost is $18 more than what you are paying now? caller: right. so far. we will not know until june. it is in 80-20 split. but she goes in for a hospital visit, we will have a deductible of up to $6,000. with my income and our circumstances, that could

bankrupt us. i don't know where anybody -- state farm or progressive with auto insurance. they think they have insurance, these young kids, but they really do not. they did not pay upfront. you think you are covered, but you really are not. the falsehood in that. freedom blue, they took my oxygen away from me. they said, we really did not take your oxygen away from you. it will cost you $30 per month. i cannot afford $30 per month. but they really did take it away from me because i cannot afford $30 per month. so essentially, they did take away from me. guest: out-of-pocket costs are a big concern for people. the deductibles on the

marketplaces are pretty high compared to what you would see in employer-sponsored insurance. $6,000 is not unusual. the health-care law does offer some protection from what we previously saw in the individual market, which is the group we are talking about here. you compare the deductibles that are offered here, $6,000 is common. the health-care law caps those at $6,350. the individual market before the health-care law was not regulated this tightly. when you talk about bankruptcy, people really could go bankrupt because they might be faced with $100,000 in costs. that is not allowed anymore. that is the good news. the bad news is that the deductibles can be pretty hard for people, especially people in your situation. i think that those are concerns that are being heard. >> you mentioned earlier that in

the system, younger people or healthier people are subsidizing health care costs for those who are older or not as healthy. if you are in the pool of younger, healthier people, what is the benefit for you to sign up? guest: it is the law. you are required to sign up for some kind of insurance now. there is that. the other thing is that you just never know in life when you will be the person who gets in an accident or who gets a diagnosis for a disease that you did not know that you would be getting. you are buying protection. there are a lot of people who say, i would rather spend the money on something else. it is a little bit harder to make that argument to people. certainly, people, younger people have a lot of interest in getting return on investment. the investment -- the return is there, but it is a little less

tangible than something that you -- >> i cannot tell you how heartened i am to see so many people that want to be here this afternoon to talk about nato. i will be perfectly honest, i wasn't afraid that we were not going to be able to attract such a strong interest in this topic, because frankly, america has been kind of asleep for the last several years on nato. when we have this opportunity to the general, we said we need to do something to start to reinvigorate an alliance that is still fundamental to america's interest. it isn't something that we talk , and it is not something that is a central focus our security deliberations. once was, but americans ultimately were rack medic and

we go where the problems are immediately, yet we should be looking at the fundamentals of the resources that we have with us. this alliance is the most important fundamental resource we have. we are very fortunate that we have political leaders -- let me just say that people say nato is the most successful military alliance in history. ultimately, it it is a political alliance that has a direction. ultimately it is about the coherence of our political agenda, this transatlantic political agenda, that is the foundation of the success of this alliance. that means we have to link the foreign-policy dimensions in the security dimensions of this alliance. am so very grateful that senator mccain and senator murphy were willing to take time. their votes are starting at 5:30, so were going to press right into this, but i do want

to say how grateful i am to them for their leadership in the senate, their leadership for our country, and their presence this afternoon to help us launch the series. i don't know which of these two brilliant women are going to start this, but with your applause, would you welcome and thank them. [applause] >> thank you to everyone for coming today. senators, if you could turn your mics on, i'm dr. kathleen hicks. i run international student program and i'm pleased to be here with my colleague who runs a program here at csi s. let me begin with a very open- ended question to both of you. we will start on the outside with senator mccain. nato is approaching yet another summit. we are at a crossroads, as we always say, but this time we

certainly have one in terms of the afghanistan mission. there are significant concerns about where nato is going in terms of the funding. theu.s. is rebalancing to specifics. with all these different factors at play, what are you seeing that gives you the greatest hope and concern with regard to the alliance? think of myg to greatest hope. and john hamry who i've had admiration and appreciation for for many years. he had humble beginnings on the staff and has fortunately for forgotten that experience and gone on to do great wings, and i'm so happy to be here. probably the greatest hope is the fact that it remains a inclusive -- i

think we have reasonable .andidates for growth of nato i think it remains a force for stability in the world. despite ourthat complaints that we have that are justified about the amount of funding, and i'm sure we may talk about that in the future -- there are only two countries, poland and norway, that have increases in spending. it still remains one of the most remarkable and enduring phenomenon of the 20th and now 21st century. worldople all over the look to nato as both a model and an inspiration. any other alliances i think will we based on that model.

i greatest concern? to spending. we also go back i think to reluctance on the part of nato, which is a reflection of the countries that they represent, of getting involved anywhere to do anything. appreciate what happened in libya, and i think it was quite impressive that we were able to take out moammar gadhafi without committing troops on the ground. syria see what happens in motley to aom number of other countries throughout the middle east, and we see frankly our secretary general seems to be compelled every morning to get up and tell the world that under no circumstances will nato be involved in anything. i don't know where he got that disease.

and it does worry me about the viability of nato in whether they will ever again intervene. i'm not saying that nato should intervene in syria. were are 8000 people who asked medically cleansed, and that move the president of the united states and nato to an agreement. in retrospect, and there is a hell of a debate in the senate. the last few days, 11,000 people have been documented to be tortured, murdered, starved to death, and there hasn't even been a comment, much less any concern, on the part of our european friends and nato partners. that is pretty disturbing to me. you for having me as well. it is really an auditor to be here with senator mccain in my

therole as chairman of subcommittee on foreign relations. i'm learning a lot from john and others. againt endeavor to recite what senator mccain has laid out as the success is here. this is the model for common defense. it is not a coincidence that there is still a long line of nations seeking to join nato, because it still offers tremendous benefits. think the greatest overused word in washington diplomatic circles is pivot these days. still, when there is trouble anywhere around the world, the first place the united states turns us to our nato allies, and they are the first respond. i would add a couple of additional concerns to those that have been raised by senator mccain. clearly, funding is at the top is thelist, as willingness of european nations, given tight budgets, to step up

to the plate and make the resources available. but i will add two new ones, which is first the issue of integrating our counterterrorism work into the mission of nato. we have seen obviously a major dustup over the revelations regarding u.s. surveillance techniques, but it is frankly i think forced us to talk a little bit about what our true counterterrorism partnership is going to be, whether it will on individual bilateral bases, or whether it can be a more central organizing premise of nato going forward, which also speaks to the second challenge. greater ability to speak with a common voice on the issue of national security and defense. it is likely going to become even more problematic for the united states to figure out anther the proper venue for individual conversation about

the future of national security as that are housed in nato or in the ee you -- the eu. the ability of this triumvirate to figure out a strategy moving forward is one of the challenges and frankly an opportunity as well. to bring going capabilities to unite that maybe right now are not available to us when we are simply talking through nato. >> can i just make a comment? lot,ire senator murphy a and he and i shared a memorable experience not long ago when we went to ukraine and were present and watched 300,000 people for a country that is free of russian influence and can be part of the european community. i don't know what's going to

happen there, and things are very tenuous, but it was a remarkable experience for us to be able to see that incredible outpouring of people in whether that is like it is today here. >> notwithstanding the somewhat tortured history of ukraine with nato and the eu, the desire of the ukrainian people to have a european facing future is a manifestation of the success of both the eu and of nato. you want to talk about the success that nato has delivered, it is present on the streets of kiev and throughout the ukraine today. it is notse you, about joining the you. it is about being a european nation, whether be the music, the culture, the economy, whether it be getting rid of corruption, it's because they are making that desire hasfested in a way that

already sacrificed a rather large amount. >> you both take me beautifully into the next question, which was going to be ukraine. senator murphy, in december you were speaking to the protesters and you said you are making history. if you are successful, the united states will stand with you every step of the way. how does the u.s. tangibly support ukraine during these difficult days? i would like your reflections on this, and what we have been witnessing over the last 24-48 hours. senator mccain, you mentioned the growth of nato enlargement. secretary clinton said in chicago in 2012 that chicago would be the last summit which is not an enlargement summit. there is real concern that the summit in wales will not address enlargement. georgias nato signal to , to ukraine, to those countries

that do want to come into nato, but yet nato politically is exhausted and may not see where enlargement fits into the picture? i would welcome your reflections on both ukraine and enlargement. >> i have had a fairly short diplomatic history, but i've never seen anything like what i we had theternoon. chance after speaking to about a half million to a million people, then had a meeting with a small group of some of the young leaders of the movement. as senator mccain said, it was really remarkable. this is largely a nonpolitical gathering, a group of largely young people, but frankly representing a cross-section of ukrainians who just want control of their government. a feeling that there will is expressed in the halls of

leadership, that there is clean government, that it is not just a means to enrich political leaders and their friends and cronies. it was a remarkable place to be. the question you asked is what does the u.s. do here? i think we have to admit there are limited tools that the united states has an there are some expectations that the united states is going to deliver the salvation for the ukrainian people. that may be too high a bar, but there are definite things we can do. we can speak with a clear voice, and we have done that in this that -- this situation haps better than in others. our assistant secretary was on the ground as soon as it was probable to do so. senator mccain i were there to deliver a bipartisan message. begun to use some fairly serious diplomatic tools like visa restrictions that may send an even clearer message to the regime. unanimity of sentiment

coming from the highest ranks of the u.s. government has had an impact on the situation on the ground. large, i knowf at that people worry that some high expectations may not be met. me go through the list of countries, there is an individual reason why each country may not be where they wanted to be a year or two ago, whether it be the name issue in macedonia or the continued security concerns on the borders of georgia. but we should continue to keep our eye on the prize here. if you have a series of summits that don't add to the membership, that it has a chilling effect on those who want to be part of nato. this is a much bigger issue than just uniting in a common defense. it is about a signal that these nations send to the world and they join one of the most reputable, esteemed political and military bodies, that they are ready for economic prime time as well. so we want to be able to keep

that light shining. a strong statement buyer secretary of state. -- by our secretary of state. it is hard for us americans to understand how important it is the backing and support of the united states of america, its government and people. in the foreigng relations committee on ukraine. and therevos -- davos was a disaffected oligarch who senatee hearing in the foreign relations committee came up in all of us watched it. i said, really? is, it mattersnt to them, just as it mattered when ronald reagan said "tear ."wn this wall or

thattters to these people the united states of america, republican and democrat, executive and legislative branch, speaks out in their behalf. one of the most moving things in my life, and i've had a long life, was when chris and i were standing there and these hundreds of thousands people began chanting thank you, thank you, and thank you. it was very moving. though we cannot underestimate moralportance of the persuasion of our allies. kind of back-and- forth, they have not been steadfast, they have sort of back off. i would like to see a commitment , b, and eu to say if a c happens, you are in. and the same with the imf.

i don't think we have seen as much commitment run the eu as we might there. so i think that's very important. in nato enlargement, i have a special feeling for georgia. i have a special affection. i was there many years ago and you could not walk down the street without a security guard because there was so much lawlessness. of the most corrupt governments in all of europe. i watched this incredible revolution that took lace, and the amazing things that have happened him including a free and fair election, even if that election were not exactly the results that i may have wanted to read the fact is, they have been pretty good so far. so here we have a country that .rankly is occupied by russia

every once in a while the russians move the fence another 100 meters or so. it is clear that putin views georgia as he does ukraine, as he does latvia, estonia, and lit the way and you, as part -- and lift lamia --lithuania. way, my friends, they have more troops in afghanistan as a percentage of net population than any other country in the alliance, and they have lost some of them. that we should appreciate already the contributions they have made to nato before they even were on the path to membership. for the countries in eastern europe that are nato members building on those last points

from both of you, they are obviously looking for the substantiation of that u.s. signal as commitment to the transatlantic alliance and of course the nato signal overall for the security of eastern europe. i'm wondering if you can each on the your thoughts challenge of the united states with other competing priorities to include in times like this, we call for u.s. troops to come home as opposed to being deployed abroad. i wonder what your thoughts are about what the u.s. could do tangibly to signal to europe our continuing commitment on the military side? that this was part of a scenario that has been going on since the early 20th century as far as the republican party is concerned. , come home america

versus the internationalist. you could go back prior to world war i, prior to world war ii, , theergh, america firsters eisenhower wing of the party. you can take it all the way up the wing where we have of our party which is dedicated to cutting foreign aid. we were at a town hall meeting today and i said how many of you in this room think that 30% of our budget is foreign aid? most of them would raise their hand and think it was more. times, therenomic is obviously that tendency to wonder whether we are expending their tax dollars wisely. that is going on in the republican party right now, and it will play out in the campaign for the nomination of our party. , but iill have to see would also like to see more tosidential leadership as

america's role in the world, and i would like to see more of us who are in the republican party who are internationalist maybe do a better job of explaining that we may want to leave the middle east, but the middle east is not going to leave us. today inwhat happens damascus matters. ihat happens today in mal matters. what happens across the broad al qaedast as we see and radical islam who are dedicated to a power extension, and when they retain the capability to do so, they will attack europe and the united states. so i guess what i'm saying is that we need to fight this ontle and have this debate -- honestly and respectfully, and i'm confident we can win again.

i found all sorts of common ground recently but it will come as no surprise to him that i came to congress as someone who ran on the premise of withdrawing from iraq. one thing i think to be careful of is not to confuse, those of us who have come to congress in the last half decade on the premise of reduced roles in places like iraq and afghanistan with isolationism. in fact, nato is the exact kind of multilateral partnership that many of us want us to reinvest in. i think it probably bears repeating that over and over again because when you hear the debate in congress is just about how fast we get out of afghanistan, or whether or not we commit any kind of military resources to syria, it masks the fact that there actually is more support here for the transatlantic military relationship and you may otherwise believe. >> to add to his point, i forgot to say that americans are

disillusioned because of iraq, and they don't see the light at the end of the tunnel in afghanistan. that has contributed enormously to this withdrawal america. i'm sorry to interrupt. >> they also understand more than many people may give them -- they wonder why do we contribute as much as we do when we have a very different threat. those are challenges but opportunities, because despite all the furor or about the sort of isolationist in congress, there are plenty of people who still want to engage in this relationship. i would add one caution to something that is often offered thehe first panacea to relationship, and that is the

trade agreement. it is incredibly important. i speak as someone who has not voted for a lot of trade agreements in my time, and i think this is both economically justifiable and a geopolitical game changer. i cannot answer the question going forward about the future of our clinical know terry relationship. we have the questions that you will seek to answer over the course of the next 24 hours on the future of nato and of smart defense. i hope we get a trade agreement, but that cannot be our only answer because that is not a substitute for the very important military partnership that still has to occur. ofcan certainly answer some the concerns that europeans have over whether we are still serious about the transatlantic relationship, but it cannot be the beginning of the end. senator mccain, you brought us towards libya and mali. on friday we had the french minister here and he gave a real

i'm in a french strategy -- a realignment of french strategy. does it mean it is time for nato to more purposely turn south where the new dangers are? do you foresee a nato role in the middle east? we are seeing in new growth area in the south and i would welcome your comments on that. >> first of all, i think what the french have done in mali is remarkable. you have to go to mali to appreciate my military friends, the terrain and the heat. it is really a very tough place to fight in, and the french have done extremely well militarily, and they're going to stay. with theonversation french defense minister and they are going to stay, so i appreciate very much what the re.nch are doing thei

they have largely succeeded so far, even though it is a long way from over. we're going to have to look at africa and look at what is happening all across. there may be some good news in tunisia, it could be some very good news, but egypt is very depressing. would like to see much more of nato involvement than just , particularly in the area of training and equipping. if there is anything a lot of these african nations need it is emphasis on border control, and they need training and help in the technicalities of counterterrorism. no matter which country you look at. in the second battle of falluja, we lost 96 marines and soldiers, 600 wounded.

now we see our vehicles driving around falluja with the black flag about qaeda. i know a lot of these people who fought there, and i know some who lost family members. it's pretty hard for me to look them in the eye and tell them that their son's death was not in vain. it is a total failure of american policy when we withdrew completely from iraq, and anybody that tells you that we wanted to leave the force and heinz is not telling the truth, because we were over there when maliki agreed to have a residual force remain behind. that is now an abject failure and it is spilling over into syria and it has become a haven for al qaeda, and it is an abject failure of american foreign-policy, and i'm not sure that i can look to parents of

those 4000 brave americans who gave their lives in the eye and tell them it was worth it. in the worlds of general petraeus -- in the words of general petraeus, we won the war and we lost the peace. >> one the things john said earlier was that if we ignore regional conflicts, ignore increasingly ungovernable territories, we and the europeans do that at our peril. africa is probably the best and closest example for the europeans. what john was saying about training is perhaps the most important ink. it is the smallest investment with the biggest return, because a smalle thing to make scale, temporary investment in trying to quell local insurgencies and quite another to commit yourself to a much larger scale in deborah. scale -- much larger endeavor. africa will be the place where

you have to figure out who leads and the future of their interoperability. there are reports coming out that we may be seeing a potential larger eu force moving forward that could pay dividends , but it will confuse a little bit of the question of leadership as to whether nato or the eu is going to play the leading role in the europe and the transatlantic face in africa. >> i want to conclude our portion before we go out to the aboutce with the question the student union address which is tomorrow night. i'm wondering from each of you, beginning with senator murphy, what you would most want to hear in that state of the union with regard to the nato alliance or even specifically to the nato mission in afghanistan. to note as wetant think about the signals we can send that may be more than just

symbolic, the president is going to be in europe and brussels. i think that will be important and we hope there is some announcement that can come out of that. i would hope that he would reference that trip and give a little bit of context to it in his state of the union speech. i'm someone who came out very in my time in the house of representatives to say that we should expedite our troop withdrawal from afghanistan. but i do see the merit in continuing to allow for both a training mission and a counterterrorism mission. the suggestion that that has to be a minimum of 10,000 troops, as we have heard in the last couple of days, that will be a hard sell to a lot of americans who i don't think believe withdrawal meant 10,000 troops i think a behind, but lot of us want to entertain that conversation about whether we can tell our constituents that

there is a reason to have in the medium term some continued admission there. my constituents are just tired. that is why you saw this outpouring over exterior. i describe it as the supermarket moment when your constituents are so angry about something that they shout out what they believe across the supermarket to you because they are that passionate. it has only happened twice, with health care and syria, in the time i have been in congress, but it does speak to the fact that if we are going to have some sizable force on the ground in afghanistan, the president either tomorrow night or in some follow-on speech or public- relations effort is going to have to give a really good reason to the american public as to why that is absolutely necessary. i agree very much with what chris had to say. i would like to hear the site trade agreements

in both sides of the world. i think it is very important. i think it is kind of sad that we have really not made much progress, and i think this is one of those issues where the president speaking forcefully may be able to overcome some of the parochial interest of both the republican and democrat base. i would also like to hear the president talk about his vision for america's role in the world. i would like to hear him talk that we don't intend to send americans in harms way. we know the american people are wearied and we know they have sacrificed, but there are still great dangers in the world. there are great threats to everything we stand for and believe in. these threats will have to be met collectively, or unfortunately, sometimes singly. it doesn't mean, as i say, bombing are sending troops on the ground, because americans

are not ready to do that. but there are so many ways that engaged, involved and and we should exercise every one of those options. if all of north africa goes, and it won't, but if the slaughter syria-n in syria and the iraq area becomes as it is now a basis for al qaeda, if egypt -- and i predict now it will -- insurgency, you cannot alienate 30% of the population the way they have and not expect more and more bombs to go off, as went off the other day. >> is we do it in conjunction with our european friends, it

has baltimore impact. we still stand for all those things that america is all about , and finally, our interests or values and our values are our interests. when we betrayed that slogan, we pay a heavy price for it. i would like to hear the president talk about not only the obligation but the privilege of being still the most important nation in the world. >> let me add one thing. to talk about the issue of counterterrorism surveillance, and he has a message clearly that he's going to first and foremost deliver to the american people about a new path forward. i hope he spends a few minutes delivering a message to our european partners as well. get this't

relationship right, if we don't figure out the future of counterterrorism surveillance activities between the u.s. and our european allies, then all our of her defense collaborations is rendered virtually meaningless. if hes important here is delivers that message, then we deserve to expect some honest responses, and i don't think we have gotten that in every case. thereknow in this room, is a lot more cooperation happening then our european partners and leaders would lead on. if we are willing to come to the table and say we are willing to give european citizens new rights and look at political ways, we needew our partners to also admit that strong counterterrorism, properly monitored surveillance programs are just as much in the european and their citizens interest as it is in our citizens interest as well. but we will never listen in

on angela merkel xfone ever again. [laughter] the tough questions are about to come. now we are ready to turn to our audience. we have about 15 minutes for questions, and i would ask, we have microphones. i would ask that you wait for that microphone to come, identify yourself. goase no comments, let's straight to question so we can get some good answers. , the senator is going to say just a few words. happy to be here. much, mr. senators, for two reasons. first and foremost, for your wonderful support for our people in harms way in many places in this world. your stronge

political commitments. be in theud to presence of nato here in the to. and we strive [indiscernible] him -- forum is there to do that and to propose a new perspective in line with the future summit. how much we appreciate how you launched this for him -- forum with a very candid approach to nato and security problems. we could argue about the role of nato which cannot do everything, but for 65 years i would say

that nato has been very successful. nato is about consensus. nato isu say that today the point of consensus in your congress? >> that nato is -- >> i nato is the point of consensus in your don't have the necessary perspective here, but i think the worry is not that it isn't issue of contention. issuerry is that it is an vanishing from conversation. their frankly just needs to be some elementary education that is done of new members of congress as to the importance of this relationship. -- is there some anxiety over the fact that the u.s. is

now contributing somewhere in the range of 75% of overall -- is there some anxiety over some of the issues that have occurred within the alliance over counterterrorism operations? yes, but i think that four members of congress who have come here in recent years, there just needs to be some basic instruction as to the importance of this alliance. >> again, the only concern i think is with sequestration and continued reductions across the board. remember that defense bears a disproportionate share because when they did sequestration, they exempted a lot of other branches of government. it's going to put a strain on much ofity to bear as the burden as we do financially. experience libyan

was instructive in many ways. it shows that there was a lot of good capabilities that nato has, but it also shows that nato is lacking in a whole lot of areas, including numbers of weapons, including refueling capabilities , including reconnaissance capabilities, and a lot of areas that were revealed as being sorely lacking, even in a relatively short conflict as libya. we ought to take a lesson from that. i would agree with chris, i think there is goodwill toward maybebut we do need to take some of our newer colleagues traveling that haven't had much experience, because there's nothing like being there to really focus the mind. so we look forward to coming to brussels and visiting with a lot of our allies.

>> i explained it this way. if you have been in congress in of last 10 years -- most congress has only been there for the last six years. this has been a time of enormous economic strain, so your constituents forced you to spend the vast -- vast amount of your issues.domestic there have been two wars committing tens of thousands of american soldiers. the portion of your brain you could reserve for foreign affairs has been spent on afghanistan and iraq. you have to spend a little time thinking about the middle east as well. it has not left a lot of room to think about the transatlantic relationships. so here is the opportunity. the economy is getting better slowly, both wars are over or winding down. a trade agreement now is forcing people to think about the importance of the relationship as it has to do with our economic security moving forward. as much as we can regret the

fact that there hasn't been a lot of focus here, this is a moment at which the oxygen that each member of congress has is now available in a larger way for this conversation. >> let's take three questions. , thell have one there microphone is coming your way. we will bundle them, so we will take the first one and move on. >> thank you very much for all of your leadership on foreign policy in the congress. in a recent op ed i argued the role of congress in the name -- main dispute between macedonia and greece. both of you are attending the munich security conference. the prime minister's were encouraged to meet to discuss their differences him a to --olve them in order to get what do you suggest and can you make some encouragement to both sides to finally resolve their

differences? >> and we have a question right here, please. >> i think you make a great bipartisan panel and i appreciate your time with us today. earliered this question so pardon me reading it off a piece of paper. the former air force chief of staff stated that without financial buy-in from nato, money for the nuclear integration with the tactical nuclear bomb should probably be aligned to other priorities. in the recent omnibus it and it seemsfunds the u.s. is moving away from an f 35 nuclear role. considering that european fighter jets will be retired and the f 35 my not be able to carry the be 61, our nato partners won't be able to deliver that bomb in the future and carry out their nuclear mission.

so i'm wondering, should our nato allies financially contribute to modernizing the be , or should it be removed from europe? a quick question to you both, could you give your verdict of the first five years of the european position of [indiscernible] what do you expect for her successor in filling out that possessio position? quick so we had the name recognition issue, nuclear capability and your thoughts on the representative for foreign affairs. >> i will claim a lack of

information on the middle topic except to say that on the general issue of the future of expense allocation, we just are going to have to ask our european partners to do more. more, word of the most damaging elements of sequestration, managing these cuts, but there's no doubt that if we want to commit ourselves to some of the projects that have been plan, we cannot see 40% reductions in european defense budgets as we have seen. we cannot allow for this european populace to worry about the things that the united states worries about. egg notchesuple of on her belt so far, the , it isnt in the balkans not the end of solution there, it is the beginning of solution for those two countries.

there have been some anxiety as to how it did not play out exactly as expected. we're trying to keep an open line of mitigation with iran, that it was to replace that has a diplomatic solution -- that gets us to a place that has a diplomatic solution. that is the quickest way you get to a solution, because that is the only thing that is standing in the white -- way of macedonia joining nato. i take your comments seriously, and we will examine this weekend's summit and other venues for the way that we can the two sides to talk together more. >> senator mccain? >> i do not share my friends opinion.

on the case of macedonia and greece, it is just ,ncomprehensible to many of us how important a name is to our greek friends. as we continue to hope that this will review -- will be resolved, ofhave the name macedonia be such offense to our friends and greece it something that i fail to comprehend. as far as the f 35 is concerned, it is one of the great scandals of rick went acquisition -- recent acquisition history. gettingnally operational, but it is still experiencing great difficulties. if there's ever an argument for a conference of review of acquisition -- defense

acquisition, if there's ever an argument that states that this is completely unacceptable to the american taxpayer, and makes it difficult for me, and people like me, who are strong advocates of defense spending when you waste tens of billions of dollars on a weapon system that still is not proven. and god knowse -- to pass aied -- spending bill that was going to reform acquisition in the pentagon. is now $2 billion over original cost. how do i go back to arizona and tell them? and so i do not know what we are as to the specific

issue, but i do know this -- that we may not have enough at 35's to do it because we still have not proven their systems. that is a source of embarrassment for me, who is a strong defense advocate. -- timenk we have for for one more question. right here? >> this has been a great event, thank you all. this question is for senator mccain. what structural changes would we have to make in our civil service system to work for peace overseas? the defense department can win the war, but they cannot till the peace that they need. how would you suggest we alter the personnel that would be available for that? >> i think that is an excellent question. as far as our state department is concerned, i've been very

impressed with the men and women to the state department and serve around the world. thatnk chris would agree we are very impressed particularly with the young men and women who are serving in the state department. i will not say that about every , but that is a bipartisan disease. [laughter] >> i think we have to make it more attractive, in that, i need a lot of young people who work in the pentagon, and they feel frustrated because they do not see a result of the hard work they have put in. i think we may have to look any better reward system, rather than longevity.

areas, of these particularly the defense department, and finally, i would like to be able to get tapped into some of these very brilliant, incredibly tedious people who -- incredibly genius people who reside on california. obamacaregotten them, might not have had the difficulties that it had in the rollout. i have talked to many who said the same thing. we need to perhaps contract out some of this work. with what has happened with security forces in afghanistan and iraq, contracting them has gotten a bad name. contracting out to do other tasks might be something we should explore. dig up midi one of my pet peeves -- take the chance to register one of my pet peeves

, i know that it is difficult to try to integrate the state department in the dangerous lace like iraq and afghanistan, i think it is difficult to try to build up that kind of diplomatic capacity in such a short time. i would argue that we have handed over far too much military and diplomatic authority to our covert agencies, making it difficult for those of us who sit on important cities but not intelligence committees to actually figure out what we're are doing in places like pakistan, and syria. if we want to have a conversation about putting the power back and this policy, -- in diplomacy, we do have a large-scale shift away from the agency that knows how to do it best. and a good example

of our stove piping, snowdenwe hear from mr. , and we were surprised. not made aware of mr. , and thatrevelations should have been known in the intelligence community and the armed services committee. i'm not a fan of a lot of the contracted that is a part of our security. >> this has been an incredible event for many reasons, wide ranging, but also notable for everybody here in the room, and watching from beyond the room how incredibly wonderful it is to see this kind of dialogue. we often fear very lonely here

-- feel very lonely here. >> can i point out that if i looked like senator murphree, i would be president of the united states? [laughter] [applause] jointlye join me in thanking senator murphy and senator mccain. [applause] [captioning performed by national captioning institute] [captions copyright national cable satellite corp. 2013] [inaudible] 4]

>> we will be taking you back to capitol hill, the house expected back in less than half an hour for legislative business. there are three bills on the calendar today. oner this week, a ban federal funding of abortions, and possible work on the farm bill. >> they began their teaching careers in 1973. her career began right inside this building, the law school at the university of arkansas, where she was a professor. she taught trial procedure.

educated, ivyll league, law school grad that . oned in the seat -- in d.c the nixon campaign. >> first lady hillary clinton tonight on c-span, c-span3, c-span radio, and c-span.org. >> as we stabilize the financial system, we also took steps to get our economy growing again. save as many jobs as possible, help americans who have become unemployed. that is why we extended or increased on a blended benefits for more than 18 million americans. insurance 65% cheaper for families who get their insurance through us. and past 25 different tax cuts. let me repeat, we cut taxes.

we cut taxes for 95% of working families, we cut taxes for small businesses, we cut taxes for first-time homebuyers. we cut taxes for parents trying to care for the children. taxes for 8 million americans paying for college. >> watch president obama deliver this year's address. it starts live at 8:00 pm eastern. facebook, andone, twitter. the union, live on c-span, c-span radio, and c-span.org. onour guest tomorrow morning the washington journal will also take a look at the state of the union address, starting with ken walsh, followed by utah covers been jason chaffetz -- hungers been jason chaffetz -- congr

essman jason chaffetz. from fccoday we heard commissioner michael riley. he spoke at the hudson institute. here are some of his remarks. >> said you were involved in , and most people when they read that provision are surprised that the court interpreted it the way they did we can you give us any color about what you thought 706 meant when it was originally written? what kind of voice you will have as they go forward in interpreting the boundaries of 706 authority? >> i do not want to say too much, because that is something we may or may not tackle going forward. i would suggest, and i hope mike all equal to or with the -- my

colleague will convercur with me, i think it is a fair analysis, similar to what people would refer to as congressional finding. it's weight should be similar. the agency has a different opinion than the majority of the different opinion, and hopefully we can get back to the original meaning of the statute. i've difficulty with the court -- frankly it is somewhat of a it wastive of how written, when it was written, and who was writing it. a republicanok at house and republican senate writing a provision right after the 1994 elections. that we would write something that secretly gave the commission authority over the internet, and yet we never told anybody, we never wrote it

in any of our analysis, but secretly give this authority -- >> do not tell anybody. [laughter] >> and then we were concerned about the power of assisi -- of the sec, so we gave them authority, and then we reviewed the authority we gave them? extensional difficult on this part of the equation. i recognize the courts have their obligation on what is actually written. very aware of what they are tasked with, but is very o see a t for me fot with aon interpreted now

complete disregarding of what the circumstances were. >> those were some of the remarks earlier today from the hudson institute, you can see the remainder of them on our companion network east and two or anytime on c-span.org. the houses gaveling in shortly for a debate on three bills come at a vote at 6:30 p.m. head start a look at and how it is handling the recent budget cuts. -- stop and take a look at how your tax dollars are being spent. joining us is a lovely golden -- olivia golden, a former health secretary, now the executive direct your of the center for law and social policy. guest: thank you for having me. host: explain what it is, and what it does for children and

families? guest: it is the nation's early-childhood program. special isheadstart that serve the poorest children childhoodvides early education. it provides assistance, and medication. host: let's talk about the cuts. headstart was hit by the across

the board's sequester cut. what was the damage done there? guest: before i get to the damage, which was substantial, i want to note that we are beginning the new year with good news. there is an expansion in the budget agreement for the coming year. there is good news. in 2013, headstart was hit very hard by the across-the-board cuts. let's talk about the cuts. headstart was hit by the across the board's sequester cut. what was the damage done there? guest: the estimate is 57,000 children lost slots in headstart. cuts. childrenate is 57,000 lost slots in headstart. almost 20,000 staff are laid off or had their wages cut.

there were a lot of other impacts. i had a chance to talk to a group of directors in the fall. they worked really hard to cut things that would not remove kids from slots. they still have an effect on the program. you close a center see you can consolidate kids in a different location. that means a struggling parent to has very little money for gas is going to be driving all over the several counties to get to the center where their child is. host: we want to make sure we bring you into the conversation. for democrats, (202) 585-3880. republicans, (202) 585-3881. , (202) 585-3882. if you are headstart participant or your family is benefiting from that service, (202) 585- 3883. talk to us about the good news for headstart. what has been restored?

guest: think you for the chance to talk about this. it is very exciting. as he said, i was assistant for something like three decades. it is $1.4 billion for early childhood programs in total. the headstart money, about half of this, restores the cuts from the sequester. the other half is for early head start. to build partnerships with childcare programs. the reason for doing that is that it is a way of expanding high-quality childcare and early education for very young children while not doing all of its are headstart. being able to improve the quality of the childcare settings the parents may be leaving their kids in. the ambitious

proposal that the president made last year in the state of the union. we hope that he and the congress will build on this to make much more progress next year. to you want to talk about, functionally speaking, if a child or student is involved in headstart, what are the takeaways they are likely to be in -- come away with? guest: let me say a little bit about what the program does to provide this takeaways and then what we know from the research. that child will be in an early childhood classroom -- if they're an early head start, some early head start programs to the early learning for home visiting, for the mother and the baby. either way, the goal there is early learning, vocabulary, pre- reading. as well as what people in the field call socioemotional development. you're focused come you can pay attention, you are excited about

learning. addition, health, mental health, help with special needs, nutrition. a lot of headstart kids have a special need. help for parents. with the research says is that at the end of the headstart year, you tend to see very wide- ranging effects across those results for children and for their parents. host: i want to ask you about the findings read in contrast that there was little evidence of systematic differences in children's elementary school differences -- experiences. meanss through what that and what that tells us about the program and what it does? guest: two big headlines from the research. the secretary had an advisory committee on headstart research which provided a report putting this all into context. the first big finding is the one

i just said. right at the end of the decades ofear, studies show these effects on early learning come on vocabulary, health, social emotional skills, parenting. there is much more dispute about what happens if you years into elementary school. a number of studies am including the one you just cited, show that when you look at achievement tests in elementary school after a few years, you do not see differences. but there is another group of studies which say that even if you do not see it in those achievement tests, the differences emerge later on. you see headstart kids doing better in terms of finishing high school, avoiding crime, avoiding early pregnancy. it is kind of a puzzle. i think there are three schools of thought. i think some of each is probably the right answer. one is that if you include the programs more you can see more effect. the second is that if you improve the schools kids go into

and the life experiences at the going to elementary school, that will help. the third is if you start earlier, if you make early head start larger and give kids more of a boost. i think probably all of the above. host: let's go to the phones. our first call comes from joey in oklahoma city, oklahoma. our democrat line. caller: thank you for a great topic. what i have been noticing since i watched a lot of the congressional hearings is that on one side, it seems that the republican party is working overtime to make sure abortion is illegal and that all of the babies get here and that there are millions and most of these kids would be low income. and then they are the very first party to cut food stamps, headstart, school programs. -- we are ranked

last in the country now for schools. it is the party that is causing the problem and i do not know why people continue to vote for them. guest: i guess the one thing i would say is that the optimistic news about bipartisan support for this big boost in early childhood am of the 1.4 billion dollars, makes me quite optimistic about the are to come. i would say that support for early childhood has been quite bipartisan in the states, even in your state -- they have made important preschool investments. while i understand the frustration with the big picture, i do think that we have some reason to be optimistic, particularly after the congress, in a bipartisan way, supported a boost to headstart, childcare, and to prekindergarten programs is hise president'

passionate about the area and could lead to neck steps. host: minnesota. republican line. caller: good morning. i have a comment about the $1.4 billion funding of this. i started my first job right out of college 35 years ago. i had 29 preschoolers and that was 3 and 4-year-olds. andve taught kindergarten at inner-city schools. i agree with the study that we do not see any significant gains. i would like to see the $1.4 thinking out-of- the-box. we are missing one of the pieces here in education. parent responsibility. kids come to school totally unprepared to learn. that is one of the things that

is frustrating to me as a teacher, after 35 years, that this program shows no gains and i am in the front lines trying to teach every day to the best of my abilities to get these low income children to do better. i see no results. i would like to see an early childhood support as a big thing. we have to start thinking out- of-the-box if we are going to spend $1.4 billion on something that shows no gains. i will take my comment off the air. thank you. guest: a couple of thoughts. thank you for your work is early childhood teacher, including in headstart. the standards have gone up over the years. a program that had 29 children would not be ok now. been ratcheting up, it has a high bar in terms of standards. i would highlight that the reason the studies i told you about that show these really important impacts as young

people from headstart, when young people are in their teens, finishing high school, making choices about the future -- one of the theories about why that might happen is just what you are saying. headstart differs from a lot of prekindergarten programs in that it also focuses on parents. it focuses on parents's investment in their education. it could be that as well as children's own commitment to education that is showing up later on. i agree with the idea of thinking outside the box. improving programs constantly, continuing to make them better, is a crucial element of investment in early childhood. host: our next caller is a headstart participant. surely in tallahassee, florida. caller: good morning. thank you so much. this is a fabulous concentration of discussion.

part of a family that received one of the first headstart certificates in 1967. departed who started in albany, georgia -- very much aware and been in the trenches of having to create funding and having to create community partnerships for headstart. some of the challenges that we isd to put in the forefront that headstart was created to for core, opportunity particularly black children, who are not receiving any pre-k instruction. out of the laws for the great

society that provided for, as you know, even for that time, black families could to bidding entity could -- collective tax dollar did not receive the support of medicare or social security or including their children, childcare. now we have a system >> can watch the rest of this on c-span that ar.org. incurs objection under clause 6 of rule 20678 recorded votes on postponed -- of rule 20. recorded votes on postponed questions will be taken later. for what purpose does the gentlewoman from wyoming seek recognition? >> mr. speaker, i move to suspend the rules and pass h.r.

2166 as amended. the speaker pro tempore: the clerk will report the title of the bill. h.r. 2166: -- the clerk: h.r. 2166: to allow for the secretaries of the departments and for other purposes. the speaker pro tempore: the gentlewoman from wyoming, mrs. mr.is and the from arizona, grijalva, will each have 20 minutes. mrs. lummis: i ask in a all members have five legislative ays to revise and extend their remarks and include extraneous material. the speaker pro tempore: without objection, so ord. mrs. lummis: i yield myself such time as i may consume. we heard testimony from jody goldberg who shared a story about the search for her brother keith, who had been murdered and

whezz body was presumed to be in the vicinity of lake immediate national recreation area. a nonprofit search and rescue team attempted to search but was delayed by the national park service for over a year. by the time the search and recovery team was allowed access to search for the remains, they were found in a matter of hours. the bureaucratic delays and roadblocks constructed by the national park service are at best unnecessary. but much worse than that, they have caused undue suffering to families that simply want to look for their loved ones. this bipartisan bill makes perfect sent. the good smaretan search and recovery act sponsored by congressman joe heck would require the federal land management agencies to quickly issue permits to qualified search and recovery groups. it would also eliminate the requirement to obtain costly

insurance provided they waive liability against the federal government. i urge my colleagues to support this commonsense legislation and mr. speaker, i reserve the balance of my time. the speaker pro tempore: the gentlewoman reserves. the gentleman from arizona. mr. grijalva: thank you very much, mr. speaker. i yield myself as much time as i may coon soum. the speaker pro tempore: the gentleman is recognized. mr. grijalva: thank you, mr. speaker. on january 12 -- in january, 2012, when keith went miss, finding him was all his familied. investigators presumed he'd been murdered and his remains were somewhere in the lake immediate recreation area, which is administered by the national park service. after several month passed, they were unable to recover the remains and gave up the search. his family, wanting what any family would want, reached out to a private, nonprofit search and rescue outfit for assistance. unfortunately, it took 15 months for professional search and rescue company to acquire the

permits and insurance to conduct the search. however, within two hour of received the necessary credentials, mr. goldberg's body was recovered. h.r. 2166 will help speed up the process for granting private, good smaretan search and rescue companies access to federal lands. it strikes a fair balance between guarantees safety and sufficient liability insurance for the american taxpayer and improving the process. h.r. 2166, private search and rescue operations, when appropriate, can -- should have and can have timely access to public lands under h.r. 2166. we support the legislation at urge its adoption and reserve the balance. the speaker pro tempore: the gentleman from arizona reserves. the gentlewoman from wyoming. mrs. lummis: mr. speaker, i yield four minutes to the gentleman from nevada, the sponsor of the bill, dr. heck. the speaker pro tempore: the gentleman from nevada is

recognize for four minutes. mr. heck: thank you, mr. speaker. i want to thank the chairman and ranking member of the house natural resources committee as well as the chairman of the subcommittee, the gentleman from arizona and the gentleman from utah, for working with me in a bipartisan manner to bring h.r. 2166 the good samaritan search and recovery act, to the floor. h.r. 2166 tears down the bureaucratic roadblocks that are preventing families from receiving closure when their loved ones go missing on federal land. this issue was first brought to my attention by the separate but similarly tragic cases of las vegas taxi driver keith goldberg and air force staff sergeant tucker. they were presumed dead, their remains were presumed to be missing somewhere in the lake immediate recreational area. in both cases, local, experienced search and recovery groups volunteered time and resources to help locate the remains of these missing individuals. unfortunately, due to unnecessary bureaucratic hurdles

from the federal government, the group volunteering to help locate and recover mr. goldberg's remains were denied access to park service land for over 15 months. the group volunteering to help locate the remains of staff sergeant tucker was denied access for 10 months. needlessly delaying the closure both families deserved. these stories are heart wrenching, these actions are unacceptable, and they must change. once these bureaucratic hurdles were finally cleared and these good samaritan search and recover roy groups were aloud access -- and recovery groups were allowed access, the remains were recovered in one case within hours and in the other within days. as a member of the search and rescue team, i introduced this bill because unnecessary red tape must not continue to get in the way of poviding closure for families faced with tragic circumstances. after a hearing this bill passed out of the house natural resources committee with a unanimous vote showing real,

bipartisan support for the measure. i ask my colleagues to pass this bill so that other families won't have to needlessly suffer the ways the fam -- the way the families of keith goldberg and antonio tucker did. i want to thank the chairman and ranking member of the full committee and subcommittee for working diligently to bring this bill to the floor. i urge its passage and yield back. the speaker pro tempore: the gentleman yields back. the gentleman from arizona. mr. grijalva: thank you, mr. speaker. let me acknowledge and thank the gentleman from nevada for his sponsorship of the legislation, very needed and very important and with that, i yield back the balance of our time. the speaker pro tempore: the gentleman from arizona yields back the balance of his time. the gentlewoman from wyoming. mrs. lummis: i thank the gentleman from arizona. mr. speaker, i yield four minutes to the gentleman from utah, mr. bishop, the chairman of the subcommittee. the speaker pro tempore: the gentleman from utah is recognized for four minutes. mr. bishop: thank you, mr. speaker. i appreciate all those who are

-- who have been involved in this piece of legislation which is very important. 100 years ago the national park service was established to try to help people enjoy these natural wonders, for indeed, if people are not visiting our national parks, they do not fulfill the measure of their creation. unfortunately in the last 100 years, it seems like there's been an attitude shift among many of those involved in the national parks and other wonders we have, especially in the west, in which people who originally were supposed to be the reason for having these parks, have been placed last. the horrific examples of what happened at lake immediate in nevada is a horrible thing to take place. were it the only example we have of these type of negative things take place, this legislation is still well deserved and well overdue. unfortunately, it's not. it's just an example of significant issues that keep coming backened -- coming back,

in which our administration seems to be putting people last and doing things which are not positive and not helpful. let me give you examples. in washington state, we have another national park in which there's an open area, almost like a community park within the national park system. and yet, the manager in washington decided to cancel a traditional annual church picnic because it would make too much noise for the rest of the national park. they also canceled a youth soccer tournament because it would make too much noise and disturb the rest of national park. during our shutdown, whether indeed they were told to try to make life miserable or not, they seemed able to do that on their own. the efforts of the park service was to shut down the parking lot at mount vernon until someone reminded them mount vernon is not federal property, it's private property. they were able to shut down a road in the smokies to stop a school bus from making its rounds to pick up kids and taking them to school and back

again. at yellowstone, an armed guard came on a bus load of seniors to try to escort them off federal property, not allowing them to make any kind of stops even for restroom breaks. at lake immediate at the same time, residents living on their private houseboat were escorted off the lake and told they could not come back. we have in this particular area, the claude morrow form, the restaurant on blue ridge parkway. even though they were private establishments, the parker is vess was doing everything they could to stop people using those ar -- areas. but it's not just the shutdown period. it was happening before that. a alaska, on ewe cohn river, man was told he could not continue on up the river because they said he couldn't continue on up the river. the unfortunate reality is they didn't have the right to tell him they couldn't continue. they were wrong and eventually

rae re-placed in that particular area. other agencies of the federal government seem to be doing the same thing. we have a wyoming rancher who did not want to give an easement to the v.l.m. he was threatened they trespassed his property they followed him and his guest, photographed what he was doing, including his female guests trying to relieve themselves. they were harassed and punished and told they would not have any of his permits renewed if he did not accede to the federal qufment in cape hatteras, the federal government went to a settlement agreement which shut down areas that had never been closed before even though locals were opposed to the effort. forest service has done the same with ski resorts and in california, a ski resort where they closed summer activities unless they renegotiate the water rights of those reports, or fwrazing rights in the west in which they refuse to once again renew the grazing permits unless they were willing to

renegotiate their water rights. all these are examples -- another minute? mrs. lummis: i yield the gentleman two minutes. the speaker pro tempore: the gentleman is recognized. mr. bishop: which unfortunately continue to go on. what the good representative from nevada has presented us is a terrific case in which the park service actually disrespected individuals, did not allow them to do what is humanitarianly appropriate and yet when they were allowed to go in there, they found these body, they could have overcome all of this if they just cared about people first but they do not. keystone pipeline. the park service once again gave a comment that the keystone pipeline would have devastating impact on park lands that were adjacent to the pipeline. unfortunately, the nearest federal land, the nearest national park, national park land to the keystone pipeline is 30 miles away. that's some kind of buffer zone we have. if indeed we decided that this agency, the department or the

administration were to put people first, we would have a much better relationship. unfortunately, time after time, we see where actually people are put last and bureaucratic responsibility goes in place of that. that is simply wrong. this bill is an example of what is happening and it's one that should be passed. i appreciate the majority and minority realize the sig cabs of passing this legislation. i appreciate the availability of time and i yield back. the speaker pro tempore: the gentleman yields back. the gentlewoman from wyoming is recognized. mrs. lummis: mr. speaker, having completed our presentation, and all of our speakers, i urge adoption of the bill and i yield back the balance of our time. the speaker pro tempore: the gentlewoman yields back the balance of her time. the question is, will the house suspend the rules and pass the bill h.r. 2166 as amended? those in favor say aye. those opposed, no. in the opinion of the chair, 2/3 being in the affirmative, the rules are suspended -- mrs. lummis: mr. speaker, i ask --

the speaker pro tempore: the gentlewoman from wyoming is recognized. mrs. lummis: mr. speaker, on that i ask for the yeas and nays. the speaker pro tempore: the yeas and nays are requested. those in favor of taking this vote by the yeas and nays will rise and remain standing until counted. a sufficient number having risen, a recorded vote is ordered. pursuant to clause 8 of rule 20, turt proceedings on this uestion will be postponed. -- further proceedings on this question will be postponed. for what purpose does the gentlewoman from wyoming seek recognition? mrs. lummis: mr. speaker, i move to suspend the rules and pass h.r. 1684. the speaker pro tempore: the clerk will report the title of the bill. the clerk: union calendar number 145. h.r. 1684, a bill to convey certain property to the state of wyoming to consolidate a historic ranch a and for other purposes. the speaker pro tempore: pursuant to the rule, the gentlewoman from wyoming, mrs.

mmis, and the gentleman from arizona, mr. grijalva, will control 20 minutes. the chair recognizes the gentlewoman from wyoming. mrs. lummis: thank you, mr. speaker. i ask unanimous consent that all members may have five legislative days to revise and extend their remarks and include extraneous material on the bill under consideration. the speaker pro tempore: without objection, so ordered. mrs. lummis: mr. speaker, i yield myself such time as i mrs. lummis: i yield myself such time as i may consume. the speaker pro tempore: the gentlewoman from wyoming is recognized. mrs. lummis: mr. speaker, my bill, the ranch a consolidation management improvement act would convey approximately 10 acres of national forest service lands to the state of wyoming to allow for consolidation and improvement of the ranch a site. ranch a is a historic property that was first developed in the 1930's and later came under federal ownership and was used as a fish hatchery. the property had fallen into significant neglect under

federal ownership, and so the ranch a restoration foundation as created and it restores and operates ranch a as a center for learning and interpretation of western heritage. however, when ranch a was conveyed to the state of wyoming in 1997, an oversight kept 10 acres under federal ownership. the babcock house, seen in this picture, is owned by the state of wyoming. now, this is in crook county, wyoming, very near the south dakota border. so we're talking about the black hills, very pretty area. but the land under the house was not properly conveyed. the forest service testified that ownership of this isolated parcel has presented management challenges and unknown costs associated with administering the property. it is an isolating trek of 10 acres upon which this house, which is owned by the state of

wyoming, is built. h.r. 1684 would address this issue by correcting the conveyance and would also allow for the restoration foundation to make further improvement for the use and enjoyment of ranch a. this bill would provide more flexibility for the use of the property which would allow for additional revenue sources to pay for maintenance and improvement. now, right now these properties are leased to educational organizations for educational uses, including sometimes south dakota state and the south dakota school of mines. the foundation itself has invested those moneys back and raises money at fundraisers, thereby putting together approximately $1 million for facility restoration and renovation. now, this next photo shows the deck before it was repaired and

acquired by the state of wyoming and then managed by the ranch a restoration foundation. so you see the damage that occurred under federal ownership, and this is its most recent state which indicates significant repairs. here again before and after the state of repair having been completed by the ranch a foundation using restoration funds that are obtained through the leasing operations. we're also going to look at some of the other buildings. there are numerous buildings on this property that are used primarily by south dakota school of mines and south dakota state university for educational purposes. this is a very expensive repair to make, mr. speaker. when these lower logs rot over time because of snow and cold and dry air and then followed by rain and they're not

properly maintained, those lower logs rot, thereby causing the building to settle and creating terrible structural problems. so this is to repair it you have to lift the upper logs, which are not damaged, jack the whole building up, pull the old logs out of the bottom and reinsert new logs, properly treated, in order to maintain the historic finish back to its state when it was built in the 1930's. hugely expensive, very time consuming. the ranch a foundation has undertaken that under state ownership. this was the status of the repairs when the forest service had it and it was used as a fish hatchery. and it's because it's an isolated property that the federal government doesn't have time to manage and it wasn't being used anymore as a fish

hatchery. state of wyoming, sibs acquiring the -- since acquiring the property from the federal government, has restored its longtime viability. now, the degraded wood has been all redone. it prevents interior damage from leakage. every project from obtaining and renovating the lodge has to be approved under historic designation standards because this is -- we've pointed out, this is a 1930's buildings. it was built by the annenburgs. t's beautiful. going through the historic designs status greatly increases the cost but it restores the integrity. in order for the foundation to improve their educational facilities, they need long-term revenue generation. the foundation's academic board members and state of wyoming's oversite office of this

property have supported the removal of use restrictions with no annual appropriations in the state budget for ranch a, their education mission is actually harmed by limiting user fees. ranch a is a cultural and an education asset. my legislation will keep the ranch financially sustainible and improve its ability to serve educational users. i urge my colleagues to support this legislation. mr. speaker, i reserve the balance of my time. the speaker pro tempore: the gentlewoman reserves. the gentleman from arizona is recognized. mr. grijalva: thank you, again, mr. speaker. i yield myself such time as i may consume. the speaker pro tempore: the gentleman is recognized. mr. grijalva: thank you very much. h.r. 1684 would require the forest service to convey to the state of wyoming 10 acres of land associated with ranch a in the black hills national forest. in 1996, congress approved nearly all of ranch a to the state of wyoming for

educational purposes. we remain concerned that the enactment of this legislation will remove the requirement that this particular property continue being used for educational purposes. potentially denying public access to a valuable historic resource. it is our hope that as the bill moves forward this concern can be addressed. and i reserve the balance. the speaker pro tempore: the gentleman from arizona reserves. the gentlewoman from wyoming is recognized. mrs. lummis: mr. speaker, we have no further presenters or speakers on this bill and so i will yield to the gentleman from arizona. mr. grijalva: thank you, mr. speaker. the speaker pro tempore: the gentleman from arizona. mr. grijalva: yield back the balance. the speaker pro tempore: the gentleman from arizona yields back the balance of his time. the gentlewoman from wyoming. mrs. lummis: i, too, yield back, mr. speaker. the speaker pro tempore: the gentlewoman yields back. the question is will the house suspend the rules and pass h.r. 1684. those in favor say aye. those opposed, no. in the opinion of the chair, 2/3 having responded in the

affirmative, the rules are suspended, the bill is passed, and without objection the motion to reconsider is laid on the table. for what purpose does the gentlewoman from wyoming seek recognition? mrs. lummis: mr. speaker, i move to suspend the rules and pass h.r. 3008, as amended. the speaker pro tempore: the clerk will report the title of the bill. the clerk: union calendar number 213, h.r. 3008, a bill to provide for the conveyance of a small parcel of national forest system land in los padres national forest in california and for other urposes. the speaker pro tempore: pursuant to the rule, the gentlewoman from wyoming, mrs. lummis, and the gentleman from arizona, mr. grijalva, will control 20 minutes. the chair recognizes the gentlewoman from wyoming. mrs. lummis: mr. speaker, i ask unanimous consent that all members may have five legislative days to revise and tend their remarks and include extraneous material on the bill under consideration. the speaker pro tempore:

without objection, so ordered. i . lummis: mr. speaker, yield myself such time as i may consume. the speaker pro tempore: the gentlewoman from wyoming is recognized. mrs. lummis: h.r. 3008 would authorize the forest service to exchange five acres of the los padres national forest with the white lote us foundation to allow -- lotus foundation to allow public access to their property. the surrounding topography makes this the only practical asset point with no other options for access, they will be able to cease operations. i would encourage my colleagues to pass this bill, which passed the house of representatives last congress by a voice vote. and mr. speaker, i reserve the balance of my time. the speaker pro tempore: the gentlewoman from wyoming reserves. the gentleman from arizona is recognized. mr. grijalva: thank you, again, mr. speaker. and i yield myself such time as i may consume. the speaker pro tempore: the gentleman from arizona is recognized. mr. grijalva: thank you, mr.

speaker. the los padres conveyance bill is a technical fix to remedy a longstanding land dispute between the foundation and the u.s. forest service. the federal land in question was encroached on by a previous owner without the foundation's knowledge. upon discovery of the problem, the foundation made an attempt to work with the forest service to remedy the situation. unfortunately, the fix requires authorization to sell land at a fair market value. the bill simply grants authority to the secretary to do so. congresswoman capps is to be commended for her leadership on this legislation and her commitment to resolve this issue on behalf of her constituents. we support h.r. 3008 and urge adoption and reserve the balance of my time. the speaker pro tempore: the gentleman from arizona reserves. the gentlewoman from wyoming is recognized. mrs. lummis: mr. speaker, i reserve the balance of my time. the speaker pro tempore: the gentlewoman from wyoming reserves. the gentleman from arizona. mr. grijalva: thank you, mr. speaker. i yield as much time as she may consume to the sponsor of the

legislation, the gentlelady from california, mrs. capps. the speaker pro tempore: the gentlewoman from california is recognized. mrs. capps: i thank you, mr. speaker. thank you to my colleague from wyoming for yielding and to chairman hastings and ranking member defazio for the work that's gone on in bringing this bill to the floor today. mr. speaker, i rise in support of my legislation, h.r. 3008. my legislation will authorize the forest service to convey a small parcel of land on the perimeter of the los padres national forest in my district to a local nonprofit organization, the white lotus foundation. over 30 years ago, the white lotus foundation purchased property on the border of the national forest in the hills above sbashsbash, california. soon after a-- santa barbara, california. soon after acquiring it, they had a small encroachment onto the small piece of the land.

this encroachment is located on the only road that allows white lotus and the public access to the property. due to this deep topography of this area, there is no other reasonable alternatives that attain reasonable access to the property. one of the encroachments lies on flat ground, but this holds equipment to fire and flood emergencies and other necessary equipment. there are no other viable areas to move this equipment. so without this small piece of land, the facility would be forced to close its doors. while white lotus and the forest service searched for an administrative solution but determined that legislation is the only viable way to permanently resolve this matter. my legislation simply authorizes the forest service to enter into a land exchange with the white lotus foundation for land worth no less than the appraised market value. if this land exchange does not

occur within two years, the forest service will sell the small parcel of land to the foundation at fair market value. prior to the exchange or sell of this land, however, the forest service must first certify that it is in the public interest and it can also impose additional conditions it deems appropriate. also, it's important to note that in the land sale does go forward it will not taxpayers even a single dime. the legislation requires white lotus to pay for the land, the survey and all administrative and related costs. there are no exemptions from nepa or any other environmental laws. and the land in question is not protected wilderness or any other specifically designated area. this is a straightforward bill, to provide a reasonable solution to the white lotus foundation and the forest service. in fact, nearly identical

legislation, mr. gallegly, passed this house unanimously last congress. the area is now in my congressional district, and i'm pleased to sponsor the bill this congress. again, i thank the chairman and ranking member for bringing the bill to the floor, and i do urge my colleagues to support this legislation, and i yield back the balance of my time. the speaker pro tempore: the gentlewoman yields back the balance of her time. the gentlewoman from wyoming. mrs. lummis: mr. speaker, the majority party has no presenters. is the gentleman prepared to close? mr. grijalva: yes, i am, thank you. the speaker pro tempore: the gentlewoman reserves. the gentleman from arizona. mr. grijalva: thank you, mr. speaker. i thank the gentlelady from wyoming as well and we have no further speakers and return the balance of our time. the speaker pro tempore: the gentleman yields back the balance of his time. the gentlewoman from wyoming. mrs. lummis: mr. speaker, i urge passage of house bill 3008, and i yield back the balance of my time. the speaker pro tempore: the gentlewoman yields back the balance of her time. the question is will the house

suspend the rules and pass the bill h.r. 3008, as amended. those in favor say aye. those opposed, no. in the opinion of the chair, 2/3 having responded in the affirmative -- mrs. lummis: mr. speaker, on that i ask for the yeas and nays. the speaker pro tempore: the yeas and nays are requested. all those in favor of taking this vote by the yeas and nays will rise and remain standing until counted. a sufficient number having arisen, the yeas and nays are ordered. pursuant to clause 8 of rule 20, further proceedings on this uestion will be postponed. pursuant to clause 12-a of rule 1, the chair declares the house in recess until approximately 6:30 p.m. today. >> three bills on the floor today. we spoke earlier