gavel land for one minute speeches. members are expected to recess shortly thereafter. there are two bills on the calendar, including one that would allow veterans to pay in-state tuition no matter what state they have residence in. votes will be held later this week a bill that restricts hunters and fishermen. the speaker pro tempore: the house will be in order. the prayer will be offered by our chaplain, father conroy. chaplain conroy: let us pray. eternal god, we give you thanks for giving us another day. guide our minds, thoughts, and desires this day. by your spirit, breathe into us a new spirit. shape this congress and our

world according to your design that we may fulfill your will. bless the members of this people's house. give them attentive hearts and open minds that through the diversity of ideas they might sort out what is best for this nation. may their speech be deliberately free of all prejudice that others might listen whole heartedly. grant that all dialogue be mutually respectful, surprising even though most jaded with the emergence of unity and justice. bless us this day and every day, may all that is done here 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 hougs her approval thereof. pursuant to clause 1 of rule 1, the journal stands approved. the pledge of allegiance will be led by the gentleman from north

carolina, mr. holding. mr. holding: please join me in thes redecision of the pledge. i pledge allegiance to the flag of the united states of america and to the republic for which it stands, one nation, under god, indivisible, with liberty and justice for all. the speaker pro tempore: the chair will entertain requests for one-minute speeches. for what purpose does the gentleman from north carolina seek recognition? mr. holding: i ask unanimous consent to address the house for one minute and revise and extend my remarks. the speaker pro tempore: without objection. mr. holding: as the obama administration continues to cut deals with iran, the iranian regime pulls in punches in letting us know they are prepared to strike our homeland, our forces in the mideast and our ally israel. these military leaders are at the real cent of pow for the tehran, pulling the strings bind

the scenes. they're also the people this administration is trust to end their nuclear weapons program even though they invested heavily in keeping that same program hidden from the world for years. iranian demanders just this past weekend went as far as talking about destroying america from within and how we will face devastating consequences if we exercise our military option. madam speaker, their words are just another reminder of how this administration has misplaced their trust and how the current deal with iran jeopardizes our national security. i yield back. the speaker pro tempore: the gentleman from north carolina yields back. pursuant to clause 12a of rule 1, the chair declares the house in recess until appr

>> i was in a car wreck, that i wrote about extensively in my book. the whole time i was in the hospital, not injured really, i had a cut on my leg, and a broken ankle, and i was training praying that the other person in the car would be ok, one of my best friends. i did not know that at the site sh, and i think because i prayed over and over for him to be ok, and he wasn't i do not begin a buddy was listening, god was not listening. i went through very long time of not believing, and not believing

that prayers could be answered. it took me a long time come and a lot of growing up to come back to faith. bush, livedy laura tonight on c-span three. watch our recent interview at the presidential center in dallas. endonsumers will win in the , and allows isps to continue to innovate, and bring new services and is models to consumers. -- business models to consumers. >> they are the ones with the tremendous amount of market power, the trend of us amount of influence in washington dc to try to ship all a sea to go there direction. -- to shape policy to go there direction.

i think that is why they are scc to move forward with this ruling. treasury secretary jack lew said today the government could default on its debt rather quickly. once the borrowing limit is reached later this month, he said tax refunds and other factors would force the government to spend its reserves aster that other times of the year. we will show you the remarks now followed by a panel on the debt ceiling. the conversation was hosted by the bipartisan policy center, and we'll so you as much as we can before the senate making -- banking committee gals in -- gavels in.

>> good morning everybody, i am the president of the bipartisan policy center. i would thank you for coming out on this dream morning for what i expect may be a sober conversation. and to save time, why doesn't everyone just insert their own metaphor now? [laughter] it is my great honor and privilege to introduce the country's 76th treasury -- secretary treasury -- treasury secretary mr. jack lew. he's an honest broker and a tough ago shia, a long career in washington from working with tip ,'neill to president clinton two tours of the office of management and budget, mostly --r up

he is liked and respected by everybody, which brings us to today. industry.n a cottage we have received quite substantial undeserved what -- credit for putting out the same report for the last several years. this has become a pretty ridiculous and repetitive wounded that we have visited. two levels understand where we -- to help us understand where we're at today, it is my great pleasure to introduce mr. secretary. [applause] thank you.

i would like to greet some of my friends. the bipartisan policy center has been at the forefront of shaping public all season that was started seven years ago. at a time when the nation quickly needs a place for bipartisan discussion of complex this has become that place on a broad range of important topics. a perfect example of that is the role that this organization has taken to shed light on detecting be wilfredo and credit of the united states -- on protecting the full faith and credit of the united states. up this can and should be a breakthrough year for economy -- our economy. and in 2013 strong

and is poised for growth in 2014. the table is now set for us to build on the economic progress we have made over the last five years, and is incumbent on washington to be part of the solution, and to avoid the brinkmanship over the last few years. it was not that long ago that -- worst recession since the great depression wreaked havoc. the hard work, determination and resilience of american businesses, and workers, and through this we are coming back. our economy has been steadily expanding. is housing market rebounding, manufacturing is on the upswing, the auto industry is surging, we are on a path towards becoming independent through energy. we have seen our deficits cut by more than half of the last five years. still, we're not where we want

to be, and not where we need to be. we must continue to build on the progress we have made by doing all we can to help the economy grow faster, help businesses create more jobs, and help more basic levelquire a of academic opportunity and security. that is why the bipartisan action in the senate to pass a budget at the end of last year, and an appropriations bill last month is so noteworthy. republicans found common ground, made compromises, to reach anether agreement that gives our government running through the end of this fiscal year. it is active, instead of letting us run on autopilot. the specter of another shutdown is kindness. .- behind us with economic headwind generated by the across board cuts, we see that cut down substantially, and sequestration has been reduced. policy decisions

also provided an opportunity to move forward with smart growth initiatives like early childhood education, and manufacturing centers. that translates into real opportunities for children to enroll in head start grad student community colleges to build -- develop the skills they need to develop cutting-edge technology. while this is a setup in the right direction, lawmakers have another refunds will be that they must meet. even though the house and senate approved the budget, passed a bill to keep the government running the they did not provide quality to pray for the commitments they made. they passed a suspension of the debt limit that only goes to the end of this week. after that, in the absence of congressional action, the treasury will be worse to use extraordinary measures to continue to finance the government. in just a matter of days, the temporary extension of the debt limit will end, and the treasury department will have to start using extraordinary measures so

the government can meet its obligations. yearfferent times of the the extraordinary members -- measures provide a cushion that we cannot control. there are large amounts that can be deferred. net spending, which varies from month to month determines how quickly the headroom provided by extraordinary measures will last. where other recent times we have had to keep financing the government, this will only give us a brief span of time before we run out of borrowing authority. same trust thie funds were not available. forget that we're likely to exhaust these measures by the end of the month. cc -- bcc reported the

savings. after exhaust this borrowing capacity, we will be left with only the cash we have on hand, meeto income revenues to our countries commitments. -- supersede our outflows. without boring authority, at some point very soon it would not be possible to meet all of the obligations of the federal government. given these realities, it is imperative that congress move right away to increase our borrowing authority. it would be a mistake to wait until the 11th hour to get this done. if house speaker john boehner has not said -- as john boehner has said, we should not even get close to defaulting. the fact is, delaying action on the debt limit can cause harm to our economy, radical financial

markets, and her taxpayers. just think about it. , wend this time last year had a standoff, and we saw a consumer and business confidence dropped him and investors and market participants publicly question whether was too risky to hold her insides of debt. such a question should be unbeatable -- unthinkable. the bottom line is, time is short. congress needs to act to expand the borrowing authority of our nation, and it needs to act now. it is important to remember that increasing the debt limit is congress's responsibility, and congress's alone. the power to extend the nation's bar authority is through them only. no progress in history is ever failed to meet this is bob the building. still, some in congress have asked -- and suggested that extending the nation bar authority would be tied to spending cuts. vanessa one republican said, the time despite -- to fight for

spending cuts is not the debt ime.ing typ fillingout the obligations that have already been made, and paying the bills that have already been incurred. raise the debt as nothing to do with new spending. it is about the filling spending will not make these obligations just get us. the truth is, the longer we wait, the greater the risks to come. whether it is the economic recovery, the financial markets, or the dependability of social security payments and military

salaries, these are not things to put it risk. in the aftermath of last year's shutdown, lawmakers understood how much of an impediment congress have become. there is no reason to repeat the mistakes of the past. --s can market predicting this can mark the beginning of a productive time. without the delays and political posturing that could snowball into a manufacture grace is that the market people want us to avoid. thank you, and i look forward to taking a few of your questions. [applause] >> we have time for a few questions, and please introduce yourself. >> welcome, mr. secretary, glad to have you here. we're so glad you are in that position.

,he question that comes to mind what are the single most important things that congress could do right now to strengthening the economy, and improve job creation? that the first thing is just to make sure that we do not have a repeat of the kinds of self-inflicted wounds we saw last year. we saw over the last two or three years, the economy picked -- inentum blending washington, and then things got jammed up. we very first thing that is just its business. we can breathe a sigh of relief that we not we do see the kind of brinksmanship that cause

anxiety not just here in the united states, but around the world. moving beyond that, and there are a number of things where there is a bipartisan consensus, where congress can move forward, and it would help the economy. i believe the christian reform has a bipartisan consensus, and very much help our economy -- immigration reform as a bipartisan consensus, and it would very much help our economy. i think skills training is another area where we go out and talk to employers in this country, as i did on friday in virginia, the question that you get asked is can we rely on the infrastructure, and can we rely on the fact that there will be generation after generation with the guilt we need -- skills we need? there's quite a lot to do to move the economy forward, and tax reform is the fourth item. thinking.gence of

i'm going to continue to be optimistic that there are things that not only congress could do, but there is a bipartisan consensus to move things along. >> governor keating? demographicsary, are destiny. issue, taxes of the policy, regulatory policy, and the like, were stunned at what is coming. once again of the cliff, it is a chasm in terms of the next 15, 20 years in terms of debt and deficit, caused by a very good thing, that we are living a lot longer. how do we address that, and what are your thoughts on this very serious feature challenge -- future challenge? inwe look at demographics the united states, and they are much more positive than in other

parts of the world. we have more young workers than other countries do, we have the ability to grow with immigration reform, and we have a history of growing our opt relation to being a magnet people who want a better life. when you look at these long-term trends, there is a need for bipartisan discussion about how we can deal with some of these issues in a balance, fairway. -- fair way. that is how we have made progress in the past. a bipartisano take consensus, which frankly has been a little bit challenging to reach. when you look at the next 10 years, we are in a very good pass. we have seen the deficit dropped dramatically, it is a very significant measure. the first step to dealing with the long term is to deal with the short term. when the time

comes for bipartisan conversation, we can keep faith that sobel security -- social security will stay as it knows it, and we can make the kind of policy that will make the difference. we need to find the space for you can have a balanced approach, and you can look at both sides of the equation. as we've said in the fiscal policy for a number of years, we need to balance revenue and spending, and that is where the difficulty has been. i believe that we have made so much progress in the short and medium term, we have a little time to deal with the longer-term. what we need is to develop a track record of being able to work together, develop some trust across the aisle. if we can get some of the other things i mentioned done over the dictating month, that would be

an excellent foundation to tackle the harder problems as we go forward. >> we have time for one more question. >> mr. secretary, every time we have got around this bush the last few years, we for the statement that the united states should not default on its debt, but -- and then the sentence continues. there are things that we ought to do, and that the debt limit should be a motivator. is it suitable for one side in that kind of discussion to hold open, just in case, the prospect of taking the global economy and and the u.s. households down with it in purposes of negotiation? >> what we saw in 2011 was different than the previous 30 years we worked on these budget

issues. we never seen the argument made that if i do not get my way, we will default. that is not an acceptable way to deal with the debt limit. the president has to take a firm position that that cannot be the way we deal with it. we cannot have this high-stakes threat that if you do not capitulate on a matter broad policy, then we are going to default mode because one side is being responsible for my and part of another side says we are not. i think the president's position on this has been a practical one. he said if you split the parties and switch everything run, we would have just as strong a connection to pay our bills -- conviction to pay our bills. we saw the senate move forward with an innovation that made it a little bit easier for congress

to deal with a couple of times, by putting it on the president to raise the debt limit and give congress the ability to object without blocking it. there are ways we can deal with us to have both sides the chance to have their views reflected. we cannot accept the notion that for the first time since 1789 that we would not pay our bills in full. it is unacceptable to leadership on either side, which is why i'm confident it will be addressed. hopefully will be addressed in a way that does not cause a relationship that doesn't damaged our economy -- cause a brinksmanship that creates damage to our economy. job in a a very big very short time. i had the luxury of introducing the secretary to the united states senate republicans when they were getting ready to approve him for this job.

that was a real pleasure then, a thanky it is again you from me to you for all you do, and for what you have done, veryhat you become in this high job that you have had. my job is to say thank you, mr. secretary. [applause] it is a really great panel, so we want to jump right in. we have the full bios of everybody in your packet. amanda is the senior treasury representative for the australian government here from the australian embassy. larry lindsey, the former director of the academic --

economic policy at the white house. and tony fratto, who now runs hamilton strategies. i want to start up with a simple question, have the american people gained anything from having the debt ceiling? >> it is a pleasure to be here today. i got the first question because -- i think the answer is yes, and i think it is important to look at the history in order to understand what that is. as a way of introduction, i slightly would correct something the secretary said about the shoe being on the other foot. the president was senator, he voted against the debt ceiling. america has a failure of

leadership, and deserves better. opposition, that is a natural position today take, and they think is important to put that into context as we consider why we have set it up that way. rules, i basic set of , toof the english civil war basically come down to know congress being able to find a a futurengress -- bind congress. that is important because they each congress have to take an affirmative step to do any kind of fiscal action. our founding fathers put up the that they had,se which was the country was at war. they said that the congress could only appropriate money to those armies for a maximum of two years.

they had to come back even in that extreme situation, and a firm -- affirmatively vote for more money. and witherstand that, the reading of history, we can all understand why that is important. that is where the debt ceiling comes from. that is the way it used to be. in 1974, for very good reason, we did a budget reform, and we spending category of that was not subject to congressional vote. we could call it entitlements, nondiscretionary spending. every year we simply continue it. fundingsay that you are the actions of a past congress, but remember that the constitution, all supreme court rulings, and the president is -- that there is

still supposed to be an affirmative vote from the current congress to continue spending. we understand there is the of the tough votes. look how far this has expanded. we have gone from automatic social security increases, would reset into rule by congress, we now have the affordable carele'e subsidies. we really do not know how much it will cost. we set the rule of, say individual has to pay, and then we have an unlimited -- not constrained by any noneconomic variables -- funding everything on top of it. i can see tangentially how that could reach out, but we have another entitlement in the bill just shows how far we pushed the concept.

here we have congress not even saying how the risk is really going to be defined, entirely made up by the president, entirely up to the discretion of the president. that is non-discretionary spending. that is the essence of discretion. now fund three quarters or most of the budget. we will say congress, you will have no say. we pushed the limit here. favor it is to government. we are giving up something in the process. i think it is an inelegant way of doing it, but i think the right path is to have negotiations. the reason you have the debt ceiling and cliffs and any decision-making apparatus is to force decisions.

the president has said, no compromise. says,vious president, he has ever compromised on the concept of paying your bills. i think that is right. every president have negative -- has negotiated with congress and sometimes in a big way. reagan did it in 1987. bush did it at the air force base. he gave up on his no new taxes pledge in order to meet the debt ceiling. president clinton did it first with democrats in 1993 and did it again with republicans in 1995. seven of these negotiations. the reason the debt ceiling is powerful first. that is it. you're supposed to have negotiations leading up to and negotiations should have taken place and the president has it isd to negotiate and slightly inappropriate to say, i voted against it, but now, you withoute to vote for it

negotiating for me. i went on too long. >> i will bring it back to the distinction between appropriations and spending and the debt ceiling. i want to start on a separate issue. we have looked at the debt issue and had these panic moments in 2011. the most common thing people say under their breath is that there must be a better way. you have thought a lot about this. is there really a better way? of betterre a number ways. basically, i fundamentally disagree with larry. debt limit is a crock, basically. there is a paradox. be effective in negotiations, you have got to be willing to shoot. we have never been willing to do that in 100 years. since the debt limit has been in existence.

place to negotiate over spending and tax matters, including entitlements, it is, when you are debating the budget resolution, that is when we set our target for spending. spending and revenue. limit, iseparate debt do not think it serves much of a purpose. it has not brought about fundamental reform in entitlements. one of the biggest things that happened around the debt limit was the law that quickly became bipartisan. you hardly heard any mention of fault -- defaulting on a debt. rid oft choice is to get the debt limit law altogether. bysecond choice alluded to secretary lou, he noted what the senator did in the past.

representative honda has a very similar approach in the house and the basic idea would be that you give the president discretion to set the debt limit a year in advance. congress would be able to disapprove of what the president did. -- president could be so veto the law and you would need a majority to overturn the veto. my second choice would be to go back, fairly reasonably in the past, and that is to tie the the budget debt to resolution that was passed. there is a practical problem with that. if you do it rigorously, you have got to confront the problem we do not forecast deficits very well. we often make huge mistakes. to make the rule work practically, you would need flexibility. you would need a margin.

a margin of error there. favorite thing to do would be to do what the australians do. >> explain that. >> a few countries have debt ceiling. none makes a greater spectacle out of it than we do but it is relatively new in australia. give me perspective on how it came about. relatively new. prior to 2008, we did not have a debt ceiling. the government would pass borrowing authority each year alongside appropriations. decisions would be made around the budget and financing decisions would be made at the same time. in 2008, australia was in a unique situation of having an ever declining government securities market. it did not have a standing

authority to borrow in the absence of a debt to financing requirement to maintain the debt market. we had introduced a debt ceiling around $75e of billion. it would basically go through the act of issuing securities to maintain inefficient government bond market. binding at the time. that quickly changed very to change with the onset of the global financial crisis. that impacted budgets around the world, including our own. the government also undertook stimulus spending at the time. there was a need to increase the debt ceiling in australia, which happened on a number of occasions. year, we gotf last to the point where we were running pretty closely it up ournst the limits of borrowing authority. there was concern at the time

about what impact not increasing the debt ceiling might have on the financial markets. the government proposed an torease in the debt ceiling 500 billion and this was not supported by the opposition in the australian parliament. they instead supported increasing the limit to a lower level of around 400 billion. still increasing the limit but not to the amount the government determined would be sufficient to covering its borrowing authority over the next couple of years. given concerns around at the time, a deal was eventually struck to remove it altogether from the statute. short experience with debt ceiling from 2008 two 2013. in its place, the australian

treasurer, equivalent to the secretary who spoke in the u.s., as torequired to issue a the maximum the government can borrow. that direction is table but it cannot be allowed by the parliament. that is where we are now. costs involved in defaulting on debt. other costs in -- involve invading. is there something we can measure and are there cost involved in not having a debt limit at all? >> just before getting to the question, to put my perspective on the table, i look at this issue and it gets very complicated. it is very complicated with a divided government. you have the debt limit issue multiplied by two cousin --

because you have the budget process, a question of how big a deficit you will have. a separate discussion of how much debt will be authorized. if you look at the decision problem, it is a question of stocks and flows. you become a variable really need to decide on one of the state of things and not both. looking at a market perspective, it just makes for a very complicated and opaque and difficult to understand process. why is that important? this is not just an issue about domestic u.s. policy. and treasury security

ultimate safe risk fee, hope fully safe. liquid asset really embedded in the whole plumbing, not just the u.s. financial system but the global financial systems. certainly one i would have a dialogue with as i move around the world, it is unnecessary as an issue, which on layers attentional noise and potential cost. you have seen this from the perspective of the white house from the treasury department both on strategy and messaging on the issue. we know reporters love drama and soda politicians quite a bit here the debt ceiling brings drama around the issue of what is the public debt.

>> it is a pretty high cost for to risk the full credit of the u.s. government in order to have that conversation. the debt ceiling as a rhetorical opportunity. i would dispute some of the negotiations. the debt ceiling is an opportunity, for congress to use that in a conversation about the size of the debt, we could use it as a reminder the debt is gotten. as a rhetorical tool to talk about the debt, it was useful. once people started to take it seriously, in the sense there to note an opportunity

grant the authority for congress to access revenues that congress is mandating, once people start taking it seriously, the cost became too high. the debt ceiling was not created -- there were real concerns in the civil war with kings trying to find other ways besides government parliament and asking for tax revenues. .hey found other ways really ahy parliaments matter of convenience to save congress from the burden of having to consistently authorize

the treasury to go into debt markets on a serious basis. every time the treasury was seeking to go to debt markets, congress relieved itself of the a debt ceiling that would prevent the administration intogoing willy-nilly putting a -- debt on the government. it was really a matter of convenience and not a matter of trying to restrain the executive in that way. and discuss the costs of that and how it changed over ofe, but even in the face then senator obama and others, a whatmisunderstanding of the debt ceiling really is and why it has become anachronistic. >> every time the issue comes

up, there is a bill. congress can maybe pay the debt, but not necessarily everything else, give us more leverage so we could push the issue more. how would markets look at if it were to pass, which it probably would not, how it markets look at a default on general obligations while -- debt payments? think you can put default and u.s. fiscal policy in the same sentence. up last issue came october and november, market participants were furiously trying to delve into the issue. a lot of people trying to understand the plumbing of the financial system and really some

of the esoteric issues. many people came to was that it is far too clever , too complicated. what is really being done in the service of, if at the end of the day, it is about a rhetorical issue or a bargaining chip, which is not going to be played. rightot think that is the solution to the issue. i do not think markets would breathe a sigh of relief. >> it is pretty clear this beaker of the house, the number twos do not accept that is ever an option. a everyone views it as ethical, something to use in a public debate when something is going to pass, does any of this matter at all, should we ignore

ultimately letll a debt ceiling go through because they do not want debt on their hands? >> no argument from me. this isn't in the elegant way of doing it. the question is, do we want to do we want to have the capacity for unlimited spending by governments without ever having to force a revisitation of that issue? it isn't in elegant way, unfortunately, because of the budget act of 1974. it is the only point at which this could happen. the problems getting worse. does anyone really think the risk payments to insurance

companies should take place without congress ever voting on it? that is a nondiscretionary item. come on, folks. we need to revisit the budget process. my first choice is not the one you mentioned. mine, let's go back and look at the budget act of 1974. talk about failures. the budget act of 1974 failed. we had asked loading deficits and debt. there are elements of the budget act of 1974 that are designed that way. cap --ng a present value calculation rigs the political case against entitlement reform and we need to visit that issue. revisitation, we have put in every congress

, just sost reapproved there is a vote there, and then congress is actually forced to confront the choice. we now have a completely runaway spending process. >> that is the beginning of the first page of the bill. remove the debt ceiling. was that -- would that work? ,> something we can agree on something we should revisit, the budget process. nobody else claimed that. i do not see the debt limit as being at all a substitute for the debt process. what have we accomplished other than create uncertainty? there is a lot of academic evidence that policy uncertainty affects decisions to invest and

hire and so on. i think we do have to revisit the budget process and we have to revisit it in just the way larry said. we have to start thinking about budget onposing a entitlement spending and medicare and social security. just upping back, countries like the united kingdom and canada, who have a nationalized medical system, they have no budget for their health costs and a live within the budget. it is radical to think we could go that far, but i think there are ways we could limit the growth of these things, some of the ways that have been already premiumd, things like support and things like the bipartisan policy center have advocated for medicare and medicaid, so, there is a way

forward. the question is, how should we do it? in this political environment? rid of thetralia get debt limit, there were discussions to do that. transparency was one of them. do people actually notice what happened as a result of the concessions and didn't make a difference? >> yes. at the time of the debate, there was a lot of attention around what might happen and how this would get resolved in parliament. it was the greatest part of the region between the government and the party, that the onernment would include more debt and interest payments associated with the debt and why our debt was changing in all of its budget out bit -- updates for -- throughout the year. requirement ground in legislation now, it was agreed when there was a material change in the amount of debt around

every six months ago, of over 50 billion, quite material in the australian budget landscape, that would we would -- that we would have an additional budget, setting out reasons why there change, and there were requirements around these, as well, setting out why the government was borrowing. was this to make changes in spending and what was the spending for? infrastructure? types of things were great, as well as some of the long-term reporting statements we do, as well. we are in the start of the phase of the new reporting. the first of that occurred toward the end of last year. we were not really know whether on not the additional transparency is how the public was reaction to that until it has rolled out.

>> we know there were a couple of different stages with the debt limit, one at the end of the week, when we reach the limit. the secretary of treasury pulls out his bag of tricks and starts using extraordinary measures which have gotten more creative over the last couple of decades. there are a number able -- of lawmakers saying, the phone is ringing off the hook with people trying to understand when the government will actually run out of money and what is the real date we have to do this. is there any value of figuring out a way to get rid of extraordinary measures and set a date so we can deal with a date? flexibility,t the given all the risks to the political system and a little flexibility for the treasury to deal with it? start with the fundamental principle.

even in the australian context, which has a unified legislation, there was still compromise and concessions. those were the words you mentioned. to have the secretary stan appear echoing the president saying, "i will not negotiate" the extreme position is no negotiations and no concessions to get this through. that is the extreme position that has to be modified. as far as, i am for all the wiggle room you can get because we have a complicated political process and in spite of its problems, it is probably the best mankind has been able to devise. still a believer in that. you need to have greece to avoid the cost of friction. until we get some preferred solution, which i laid on the table, the budget act of 1974, let's let all the grease we can have on the wheel so they do not freeze up.

>> basically, everyone tries to have multiple ways. or brink withrink a parachute, and you could have it or not. you could have extraordinary measures or not have extra nine measures. government the u.s. has to go through these kinds of contortions to meet obligations to this. it is incredibly inefficient and costly in the short run. at the end of the day, a radical position. i am so envious of the obama administration. democrat and republican control of congress, we had to go to congress, congress, to do retrospect now,

congress will pass the debt ceiling. there is not a brink here. congress will raise the debt ceiling. i amis the only thing really certain of. the administration does not have to negotiate because it is not a negotiation. there is nothing to negotiate. congress will pass the debt ceiling. the stakes were not congress hasis taken them in recent years. i will tell you every one of the negotiations we had to do with congress, the vast majority of them were not on serious issues. congress a member of wanted someone to be on a board or commission. another member of congress weted to get a promise that would agree to send someone up for a hearing on cuba policy.

completely unrelated things. it would be great if we could and aeal debates discussion on long-term entitlement programs. everyone was here would agree that would be useful if we could negotiation and discussion on the big issues of the day on tax and spending and long-term obligation. not what this default into. what it really becomes is an abuse on the part of the legislative branch on the executive. the executive finally realized it could just take a step back from the line and say, we will not allow ourselves to be extorted in this unnatural process. you divide the debt ceiling. it is a congressional creation. it is yourand obligation to get us out of it. that is where we are. it puts both the executive and legislative in a much better

position going forward to have this debate on other areas that are more natural. >> that is pretty obviously -- lawmakers use the issue to get attention. they want to raise money. there are a number of reasons you might do this. some of them care about the issues and are not just trying to get elected. do you think when the public pays attention to this and it becomes a crisis moment, that they are more versed -- more informed as a result or less informed? >> i would guess 70% of the public has never heard of the debt limit. case, the debates we have had in recent years about the debt limit or the budget, unfortunately, have not been that informative. if there is a crisis, i am hopeful that congress will yield with it. the one reassuring saying is if

you look at other democracies that have had crises like sweden , and we can debate whether canada was a crisis or not, but it looked like a crisis to me, they have ultimately solved the problem in a rational way. of countries lot in the former soviet union, where they tried to resolve the problem simply by printing money. that is the most disastrous way of solving the problem. 10,000% a year inflation is not a good thing. -- i do know somebody not know of any developed democracies since world war ii that has solved a problem that way. that gives me a little bit of free of -- reassurance that when the crisis comes, they will deal

with that appropriately. >> one of the things we saw in out of, investors pulled the short-term treasury deficits, and they did not want to get stuck with that given the risk. we have seen some of that already. what is the cost of that development? andave seen it already, what is the cost of that development? maybe the government accounting office did some studies here, put some estimates on it going back to some of the early episodes. 2011 has been looked at in more detail. there are certainly some short-term costs. certainly market participants were reluctant to hold short-term treasury securities that were maturing just around like.nd of d-day, if you there were frictions introduced markets.

treasury securities are used widely for repo operations, a essentially like an oil greasing the wheels of the global financial system. itestors, whether they liked or not, had to start. -- had to start doing contingency planning. they had to make sure the u.s. will not default on its debt. of course, it has not and probably never will in this way. yet, everybody had a fiduciary and to their investors other stakeholders. so everybody had to do this extensive contingency plan. the "what if" -- how much collateral are we holding and what is our exposure to an event? tales sort of a black swan event. nobody believes it will happen within the equilibrium. but what if it did? what would the consequences be? it is not the costs incurred last year or in 2011, but it is

the "what if the score scenario. and if you contemplate for a moment, you can tell some scary scenarios about what happens to the global financial system. one of the lessons we learned in markets and market participants do not know an awful lot about the plumbing. a lot of people were blindsided by the fact that something that looked innocuous, relatively, at housing, a downturn in problems with subprime securities, suddenly generated this toxic waste, if you like, through the whole global financial system. there is a similar level of uncertainty about what if the linchpin of the global yield curve of which everything else is priced were to actually default? what would that do to that system? nobody really knows, but we do not want to go there. agree with all, i

what you said. but me put a slightly different interpretation on it. first, i think it is a great thing that the markets are diligent and doing what they should have done before. that is an important thing. second of all, let's give some credit to the american economy and the american markets. i remember around the time of mean, theent 30 -- i media machine was already cranking out how this would tank the economy. "we are already seeing signs of economic slowdowns here go turns up the best two quarters we had in years were the third and fourth orders of last year, right smack the ones that were supposed to be so devastating for us. so i think we can all take a little deep breath here. we are a very sophisticated country. i am certainly not an advocate of going over the cliff. but come on, guys, let's grow up. we are trying to do this for our own convenience to avoid tough votes and to avoid negotiations.

that is what the president's position is be returning, i shared your view that the founding fonder -- founding fathers made one big mistake. it was called article one. i get that. [captioning performed by national captioning institute] [captions copyright national cable satellite corp. 2014]

>> i called to order this hearing of the national security and international trade and finance subcommittee. titled -- safeguarding consumer's financial data. i will introduce the two witnesses now and make a brief opening statement. we have two panels. if my colleagues do not mind, we will go straight to them to let witnesses give resin stations. the subject has generated an enormous amount of interest. i am very appreciative of both panels. in the first panel, we will be hearing from the deputy special agent in charge of secret service's criminal investigation division, cyber operations, and 's ciberees the servicej' portfolio. he has over 20 years of government experience here at he has done transnational fraud negotiations.

welcome. ms. jessica rich is the director of the bureau of consumer protection at the ftc pg has held a number of senior positions, including associate director in charge of the division of financial practices and assistant director of the division of privacy. she joined the ftc staff more than 20 years ago. welcome. this is a subject that has garnered a lot of public attention recently, and i think a longerdy who spent career in technology than i have in government, this is an area that i think is going to -- we're going to see an exponential rise in consumer interest, ands others as we try to get our arms around a challenge that is only going to grow in terms of our --

all of our lives. we have heard of massive data weeks atin recent target, neiman marcus, michael's, and other retailers. at target alone, more than 40 million cards were compromised. up to an additional 70 million other consumer information was taken. not only were the card sticking, but if the cards were not taken, data was compromised as well. we had to make clear that while we're talking about specific retailers, this is not a witchhunt about any particular retailer's actions or in actions. ,onestly, i think we will see and i know from my role in the intel community, this is a crime that have instantly to financial institutions, retailers, at a level that most americans would find rather confounding. i at one point had a much longer

statement, but there are three areas i think we need to focus on. as we sort through this issue, we need to understand that we don't need another -- i do not need, at least, long-term fight between the bankers, retailers, and the card industry. many of us up here have gone through these challenges, rightfully felt, around the interchange bottles, but a repeat of that kind of delay in getting a solution serves no one . china,kers in russia, ukraine, throughout the world, are not waiting for america to get its act together on this issue. they are continuing to strike as everyday. to better protect consumers, our financial institutions, networks, and merchants should work together to continue to

innovate on anti-fraud technology. as i said, the public cannot multiple yearsr of legislative battles like we saw over interchange fees. every minute of every day, the hackers and the cyber thieves are attacking our vulnerabilities. second, somebody who spent a career in technology, in many ways this is fundamentally a technology problem. and technology can provide part of the solution. you have already seen data that shows that the card protection system used in europe, so-called system, is much more effective than what we have presently in the united states in terms of the swipe system in terms of riveting fraud at point-of-sale. but we should not assume that any single technology is a silver bullet solution. technology, as we know, what continue to evolve on a weekly, monthly, basis, and we have to

to continue to stay ahead. we have seen in europe that while the chip and pin system dramatically decrease, for example, in the u.k., the amount of fraud and tiber theft at point-of-sale, we saw a dramatic increase then in online fraud and cyber attacks. discusse we are able to technology solutions, not just ship and pin,, but as we look at the online issue, there is this emerging field which can provide a more encrypted solutions sets, not just for point of sale, but .or other solutions again, we are not here to endorse any specific technology products or services. but i think this is an area where we need great collaboration. to play.t as a role industry has a role to play. but as consumers, we need to be

more vigilant as well. consumer financial exposure is more limited with credit cards. here is my personal debit card. i will try to pull the numbers back a little bit. but until a few weeks ago, i did not realize that my debit card protections are not as great as my credit card protections. i will let my record show that i do not show the numbers on either side. but even with the debit card protections, there are -- with this challenge, we have got to look at perhaps raising those standards to equaling credit cards. debit card use has been growing like mad. sincections tripling 2003. again, i think about my kids who have got debit cards and large portions of the underserved community use debit cards, and that will be a fact of life and we have to figure out a way to

act swiftly. finally, as we talk about one of the most frightening things that i heard as i sorted through this, thinking about cards and protecting consumer privacy, in many ways we have focused so far on the challenge around protecting credit cards and debit cards am a but the real potential exposure we have is that people can actually get onliner bank accounts or transactions that we all do more and more online banking and other services. that offers an area where there are very few protections at this point and almost unlimited liability for consumers. so one of the challenges we had is, yes, we have a role for industry and for government, but we all have a role as americans to make sure you take that extra protection to occasionally makee your pin number and sure you never reveal your bank account information number, that you constantly report if you feel like there has been an instance of fraud. this is a role that all americans will have to play,

continued vigilance and. with that, i will ask for comments from senator kirk. just. chairman, i would put a face to this crime we're talking about. -- albert dollars gonzales was convicted in 2010 of stealing 40 million credit card records. he made so much money off of this that he even bought his own italian island off the profits. now serving 20 years in prison. that is in line with the legislation i will be introducing that calls for a 25-year federal minimum this kind of theft or just to say goodbye, you are off to prison for a significant torsion of your life. i am looking for bipartisan

cosponsors. >> i think the question of enforcement has got to be an area we focus on. i think there will be bipartisan support. all right, with that, i look forward to an exciting and robust discussion. >> good afternoon, chairman, ranking member, and distinguished members of the subcommittee. thank you for the opportunity to testify on behalf of the department of homeland security regarding the exploitation of cyberspace to obtain sensitive and financial identity information to defraud our nation's payment systems. our modern financial system depends heavily on information technology for convenience and efficiency. accordingly, criminals motivated by greed have adapted their methods and are increasingly

using cyberspace to exploit our nation's financial payment systems to engage in fraud and other illicit activities. the widely reported data breaches of target and neiman marcus are just recent examples of this trend. the secret services investigating the recent breaches, and we are confident we will bring these criminals responsible to justice. however, data breaches like the recent events are part of a long trend. in 1980 four, congress recognized the risks posed by increasing use of information technology and established eight and 1030.ections 1029 these statutes define device fraud and misuse of computers as federal crime and assign the secret service authorities to investigate these crimes. in support of the mission to safeguard cyberspace, the secret crimee investigates cyber through our highly trained special agents in the work of a growing network of 33 electronic

crimes task force is which congress has assigned the detecting preventing, , and investigating various forms of electronic crimes. crimeesult of our cyber investigations, over the past four years, the secret service has arrested nearly 5000 cyber criminals. in total, these criminals were risk route -- were responsible for over $1 billion in fraud losses. over -- we have prevented $11 billion in fraud losses. data breaches like the recently reported occurrences are just one part of a complex scheme executed by organized cyber crime. these criminal groups are using increasingly sophisticated technologies to conduct a criminal conspiracy consisting of five parts. accessining unauthorized to computer systems carrying valuable project and. two, employing specialized malware to capture this data. three, distributing or selling the sensitive data to criminal

associates. four, engaging in sophisticated -- distributive frauds using the sensitive information. five, laundering the proceeds of their illicit activity. all five of these activities or criminal violations in and of themselves. -- thisducted, they are scheme has yielded hundreds of millions of dollars in illicit proceeds. the secret service is committed to protecting our nation from this threat. we disrupt every step of their five-part numeral scheme through proactive criminal investigations. the defeat of these transnational cyber criminals through arrest and seizure of assets. foundational to these efforts are private industry partners, as well as close partnerships with state, local, federal, and international law enforcement. theseesult of partnerships, we are able to prevent many cyber crimes by

sharing criminal intelligence. and minimizing financial losses i stopping the cyber criminal schemes. through the department national cyber security and communications integration center, the secret service also quickly shares technical cyber security information while protecting civil rights and civil liberties to allow organizations to reduce their cyber risks by mitigating technical vulnerabilities do it we also partner with the private sector and academia to research cyber threats and look for trends to reports like the insider threat study, the verizon data breach investigation report, and the global security report. the secret service has a long history of protecting our nation's financial system from threats. in 1865, the threat we were was connectedress currency. as our financial payment system has evolved from paper to

plastic, now digital information, so has our investigative mission. the secret service is committed to protecting our nation's financial system even as criminals increasingly exploit it to cyberspace. through the dedicated effort of taskforces and by working with the department of justice, the criminal division and the global u.s. attorneys offices, the secret service will continue to bring cyber criminals that perpetrate major data breaches to justice. tonk you for the opportunity testify on this important topic, and we're looking forward to your questions. >> chairman warner, ranking member kirk, and members of the subcommittee, i am jessica rich, director of the bureau of consumer protection at the federal trade commission. i appreciate this opportunity to present the commission's testimony on data security. in today's interconnected world, personal information is collected from consumers wherever they go. from the workplace to shopping for groceries, from our

smartphones to browsing the web at home, virtually every action we take involves the collection of information, some of it very sensitive. many of these data uses have clear benefits, but the recent state of data breaches ours -- are a strong reminder that they also create risks for consumers. hackers seek to exploit vulnerability to obtain and misuse consumer personal information. all of this takes place in the backdrop of the threat of identity theft, a pernicious crime that harms both consumers and businesses. the bureau of justice statistics estimates that over 16 million people were victims of identity theft in 2012 alone. the ftc is committed to protecting consumer privacy and data security in the private sector. since our first data security case in 2001, the ftc data security program has been a strong bipartisan effort that includes law enforcement to my education, and policy initiatives. several lawsces

that protect consumer data. under the ftc act, the agency can take action against companies that engage in deceptive or unfair practices, including deceptive or unfair data security practices. the ftc also enforces several laws that require special protections of certain business sectors. the credit reporting industry, among financial institutions, and also among all mine services for our kids. in enforcing these laws and investigating potential data security failures, the commission recognizes that there is no such thing as perfect security and instead examines whether companies have undertaken reasonable procedures to protect consumer data from the risk of identity theft and other bits use. since 2001, the ftc has used its authority to obtain settlements , 50 settlements with businesses that fail to provide protections. the best-known case may be 2006 action against a data broker that allegedly sold sensitive

information about more than 160,000 consumers to thieves posing as choice point clients. the commission alleges choice point failed to use rosie just to screen or justice of consumer data and ignored obvious security red flags, resulting in at least 800 cases of identity theft. before choice point, the ftc brought actions alleging security failures by such companies as microsoft am the after that, and to such companies as tjx, lexus, htc., rite-aid, and many cases of her 14 years alleged similar commonly known vulnerabilities and security failures. in addition to enforcement, the commission promotes strong data

security through consumer education, business guidance, and policy initiatives. for example, our website contains guidance for consumers on what to do in the event of a breach. and perhaps our most important education is our guide to businesses about how to develop a strong data security program. sitting here today with my colleagues from the secret service, i want to emphasize that data security is a shared responsibility among many different entities and people, including the different law enforcement agencies that work in this area. the commission has a long history of working closely with other federal and state agencies on this important issue. for example, the ftc's case that was a joint action with 35 state ag's, and we received assistance from 39 state agencies in the case against tjx. department ofhe health and human services in cases against cvs and rite-aid. we coordinate with the fbi and

secret service. the goal of the ftc and criminal agencies are complementary. criminal actions seek to punish hackers and consumers that still consumer data, while our actions focus on shoring up security protections while companies prevent intruders from getting inside in the first place. the mcginn cleared as a final point on data security legislation, never has the need been greater. the commission reiterates its bipartisan support for federal legislation that would strengthen the ftc's existing authority of data security and require companies to notify consumers when there has been a security breach. thank you for the opportunity to testify here today. the commission looks forward to continuing to work with congress on this critical issue. >> thank you. thank you, both. i would also like to point out that last week i asked a question at dni clapper. he had made an estimate that cyber attacks from -- on our

economy were in excess of $300 billion worth of damage, and that was a last year report. asked him, and he says that number has probably dramatically increased. that was in public testimony last week. obviously, the goes beyond the question of individual data breach. but i believe this will grow dramatically. i also want to mention that the secret service does not want to weigh in on specific technology solutions, chip and pin and others, but we are going to need your cooperation at some point and guidance on how working with industry and whatever standards come about, that we have got the cutting-edge technology. i guess my first question for n, why is it that evenecret service or security bloggers are often times the first to know about these attacks?

gottenstand we have industry of standards that are set, but this news keeps floating out more. floated fromreach a blogger, i understand, and it was said that the malware involved in the target breach was identified back in 2011 here at why is it taking us so long to respond? is that a restraint on you or is it not enough aggressive action from the industry? first you got into the fact that sometimes the secret service knows ahead of time about these breaches and we are able to bring it to the attention of different victims. so the fact that we do this is through proactive investigations where we are out sometimes ahead , determining in looking at data as it relates to financial industries.

it is through partnerships we have in the financial industries sector that are able sometimes to bring us data where we are able to go through the data and be able to find out where information is leaking into the criminal underground from. a, too, is the same way believe that some journalists are able to get a hold of some of that information. you also brought up the malware and the fact that it has been around since 2011. i think what we're discussing here is the type of malware. so it is not necessary -- necessarily the exact type of malware. malware can be molded and changed project. these attackers are molded malware, so it is not the doctor antivirus and technical means that general i.t. security folks will have. so these are very sophisticated are not actors that using regular malware. they're modifying that malware for each particular high-tech attack when we're talking about an attack of this significance.

>> i guess one of the things, this is both for you and ms. rich, how do you get the standard right on when it becomes the duty of the company or the financial institution to report an incursion? you know, particularly since this involves all the time. we know there are standards set, but that is why we constantly evolutionary -- do we have it right? do we need more tools? or do we need collaboration and setting a regulatory process that would be static? let's move this quickly and and i have one less question. >> well, what the commission supports our federal standards for both data security and breach notification. right now there are state laws requiring breach notification that no standard at the federal level and no civil penalties. while we have tools and we're using them to enforce, to

address data security failures by companies, it would be extremely helpful to have a federal law requiring data security, not just notification, with civil penalties. >> how do you make sure that law will evolve quickly enough? sometimes standards take seven years to evolve, but this is a field that changes on a monthly basis. >> we believe that the legal requirements should require a process for developing appropriate data security so that the specific technical standards can evolve and perhaps be implemented through self-regulation or industry standards. but we do have one regulation in the financial area that is comedy a model for this the safeguards rule that sets forth a process. you have to put somebody in charge, you know, your chief technology officer.

you have to do a form risk assessment and then implement safeguards in key areas of risks such as employee training, network and physical security, service providers, etc. and it sets out a process like that weird we are able to use that as a tool for enforcement without mandating levels of encryption and things that change over time. >> i want to respect my colleagues time. could you also identify targets that could have been from the ukraine, but where in general these are from? >> many of these are national, and transnational. cyber criminals are attacking us from eastern europe. i don't want to say this one country versus another country. ,hat we are seeing is that largely, the cyber criminal world is using russian speaking -- and i say russian speaking in that they are using the russian

language as operational security. that is the piece that the criminal underworld is using to hide themselves from u.s. law-enforcement. >> a quick question for mr. noonan. russianribe the general cooperation with a lot of these attacks. you describe law-enforcement cooperation? >> there have been many of these instances where we have worked cooperation with law enforcement. >> but a mere is not our greatest friend. could you tell us where you do your corporation -- vladimir putin is not our greatest friend. could you tell us where you do your corporation with? generally, the cooperation that we deal with through the russian authorities is through notification process to get

a process taking care of in the russian federation. effects a quick follow-up, any extraditions from russia? >> no, sir, we have not had any extraditions from russia. >> senator warner. >> -- warren. >> all of us have constituents that are affected by these data breaches. i think it is clear that the data protections that we have in place now are not enough. people, 16 .6 million seven percent of the adult , were victims of identity theft. it is a huge number. i would like to get a better sense of how these laws are enforced. to goc has authority

after companies that have engaged in either deceptive or unfair practices. i want to break those, -- those two out, if i could. ms. rich, can you describe what is done in regard to data security standards for the ftc to bring a claim for deceptive practices? >> our deception authority focuses on making statements, or admitting information that is material. our cases in this area generally involve statements that can be expressed -- you know, we encrypt our data to the highest levels of block, block, block -- blah.h, blah, know,is implied -- you you give us your data security and we will encrypt it and make sure it is taking care of.

we do hearings with officials at companies and we consult with experts to determine whether those claims are true. me just clarify this. if a companies security standards are inadequate, but the company says nothing about ftc is powerless, at least under its authority to go after deceptive cactuses. is that right -- deceptive practices. is that right? >> we had two prongs. and then practices also on fairness. >> i will get to fairness in a second. for a company that has totally inadequate deception standards, i want to clarify. i think what you are saying to me is that if a company says deception data standards, then the answer is that under the deceptive prong, the ftc has no authority to go after this company. is that right? >> that is absolutely right. and that is one of the reasons

we are supporting general data security legislation. but let me say, we do also have unfairness authority and we use our deception authority not to look -- to look at not just what is stated in a privacy policy, but what a company may claim in the context of its interaction with consumers, including implied claims. >> ok, but under your authority to go after deceptive practices, i understand that the ftc has settled about 30 data security since 2002. that would be about three per year. it is fair to say that is not very many, given the number of data breaches that we seen in the past decade. >> i would emphasize that there is not strict liability for a breach. when a breach happens, we look at the underlying practices and not whether there was a breach

and then we automatically bring a case. i would also -- i would also emphasize that we believe are 30 deception cases and 20 fairness cases provide general deterrence, and specific to turn, especially given the kind of ramifications we seek. -- the kind of remedies we seek. it has brought a lot of attention to the need to secure data and made a difference in raising the stakes, but we do need more tools. >> let's talk about that a little more. in addition to the 30 cases you've brought over the course deceptivee under track kisses, i just want to ask about unfair practices. -- under deceptive practices, i want to ask about unfair practices. can you describe what a company when a claim of unfair practices is broad?

>> we have a three-pronged test, and one of those is substantial injury. many of these data failure cases -- again, it is not strict liability for a breach. we have met that standard and, therefore have brought those cases. >> i understand. and if i'm understanding this correctly, you are describing a fairly demanding standard. it is more than breach, more than the fact that people have been injured, more than the fact that a company had very lax standards. as i understand it, there is some question around the ftc's whichity in this area, may be why you have used unfair practices in only 20 cases over 10 years. i thinkant to say that this is a real problem, that the enforcement authority in this area is so limited. the ftc should have the

enforcement authority it needs to protect consumers and it looks like to meet does not have that authority right now. are noturity problems going to go away on their own. congress needs to consider whether to strengthen the ftc's hand. thank you. >> that was an interesting line of questioning. -- you mayes see have a series of players in an industry that are meeting those standards. the challenges that you may have that one weak link and the whole industry could be infected because of the weak link. i think there should be more ability to collaborate here. let me start out on the international front, if i could, and maybe follow-up on senator kirk's questions a little bit. available thatta would illustrate to us what percentage of the tax -- of atta cks come from outside the

united states? is that data available? either one of you. go ahead, mr. noonan. >> i'm certain that it is. i will have to respond back to you in writing. >> just for the purposes of the hearing, would it be the majority of the attacks, do you think echo >> i would say the majority of the significant attacks would be outside of borders? -- outside of borders. >> and to put a finer point on it, would the majority of the attacks come from eastern europe? the foreign tax? attacks? the foreign >> yes, sir. terms of the cooperation that we get out of that part of the world, can you think of any case at all where there has been annex tradition -- been and extradition from eastern europe

where a hacker was sent to the united states for prosecution, any case? >> yes, just recently we had a case out of romania. >> is that rare? >> with the remaining in authorities, we are working very closely with them at this point. -- with the romanian authorities, we are working very closely with them at this point. but the other countries in eastern europe, it could potentially be very rare, yes. >> what i'm trying to get at, and i'm not trying to be coy here is that it looks like parts of eastern europe are a sanctuary if you are a hacker. because the chances of being sent over here to face prosecution and conviction and are probably nonexistent. would you agree with that statement? >> yes, i would agree. >> that is kind of a bad deal, no matter how secure you are. because at the been -- the end if those folks are

not facing the possibility of prosecution, they will just keep going. >> yes, however we do have some very strong partnerships with other countries over in eastern europe. and it is through those collaborative efforts that we are making gains against a number of the cyber criminals. to say that we do not have cooperation in eastern europe is not 100% accurate. >> right. >> it is true that many of the different law enforcement authorities, that we do have a collaborative -- strong collaborative effort in moving toward identifying the these actors are and learning more about their networks. me focus on bridge -- because iification, think from the consumer standpoint, that is critical. as consumers, we want to have the ability to trace a hacker -- we won't have the ability to

trace a hacker to romania or whatever. but the one thing we do have is if we are given notification, we have the ability to stop using the card, or tear it up, or .otify our creditors we can be proactive. , how important would you say breach notification is in our effort to protect consumers? >> i think for the very reasons you say it is extremely important, which is why we support a law at the federal level with severe penalties. >> how do we do that -- and i don't want to get into a sensitive area, but this is a sensitive area. as a former cabinet member, i can tell you that i know we had millions of records from sensitivehat contain information. social security numbers, date of birth, resident's address, on and on.

i will also add that oftentimes, the federal government security system is not the best. it is not the but best. and it could be the health care law, the v.a., the department of agriculture, a host of things. we have on the federal government that if my information at whatever compromisedas been somebody will let me know that? >> you mean, what laws federal the -- governed the federal government's collection of information? >> yes. >> there are a number of laws that require data security among federal government agencies, as well as breach notification. i'm not completely familiar with the details of all of those, but i know that if any breach , who we arey bureau

supposed to report it to. >> are there any breach notification requirements in the health care law? >> i'm not familiar with the details of the health care law. but i do want to add on the point you are making about eastern europe -- because there will always be criminals that may be coming from countries where there -- where it is difficult to trace, that is why there is this partnership, this joint effort among different approaches and agencies. we cannot just count on criminal enforcement. it is also important that companies shore up their systems as much as they can against attacks. we need to attack this problem from different angles. >> think you, mr. chairman. >> senator tester. >> thank you for holding this hearing. as long as we are talking about breach, we will flash -- flesh it out a little bit more. the breach that you were talking about with senator johansson was between the financial institution and the coal -- the

cardholder. breach between the retailer and a financial institution or the retailer and your office? mr. noonan? or your office, ms. rich? >> there are state laws that require breach notification that may apply to retailers. but there is no federal notification law. >> there is no federal requirement across the board for the retailer or the banks or the retailer and the investigative services or the banks and investigative services. no breach requirement across the board? >> not that i'm aware of. >> can you tell me when the breach happened on target? >> that is still an ongoing investigation. >> but when did the breach actually happen? maybe that is an unfair question. when did the actual attack to the database actually happen? what date? >> it is an active investigation, so we cannot get

into that. >> you cannot tell me how much time it was before you found out about it to be able to start your investigation into when the breach actually happened? >> no, i cannot at this point. >> it was not immediate. >> [indiscernible] >> i will not put you on the spot. you can take the fifth if you want. it does not matter. >> in the public, december 15th and then the 19th there was an announcement. >> there needs to be a breach notification because time is literally money in the situation. there is a breach that happens and the retailer reveals the information, or for some reason the inking institution may want to hold that. i don't know why either one would want to, quite frankly. you guys need to know about it immediately, save can start finding out where the bad guys are that it is if we are going to get to the bottom of it, write? >> yes, sir.

your program, focused on entry of criminals. and you highlighted investigation networks where cyber criminals were able to install programs to be able to capture information from retailers. and it has already been talked about by the chairman. , 70e are 40 million cards personaleople's information was given out. can you tell me why they would be storing sensitive information on their own networks? believe in this case information on the cards were actually being stored on the network. >> how did they get the information? >> the information was being selected as the data was going through the process. >> ok, i got you. how did they get the 70 million?

>> it was a heavy timeframe of collection time in which the data was being collected by the criminals. so whether this was encrypted or not makes very little difference. i was under the assumption that this was on a database. that the information was not encrypted. the folks i got into that database then encrypted the information and took it out. >> at think you're getting this from the media, perhaps. >> perhaps. [laughter] this is an ongoing investigation. i cannot talk about the specifics about how this was being done. >> i want to talk a little bit about the enforcement that you have. right now, seriously speaking, of all the things you have to deal with, do you have any tools to work with that really work? >> we are doing a lot in this area.

we are bringing enforcement, doing education. >> i'm not being critical of you . i'm being critical of us. >> we do want more tools. >> when was the last time your tools in dealing with this issue were dealt with from a policy standpoint? a revamp of your tools dealing with data breaches in the last 10, 15, 20, 50 years? >> we have received some new authority and this area -- in this area, including a data breach law for a narrow class of health entities, personal health records. wasgramm-leach-bliley act passed in 1999 or 2000, but it has been a while. >> we have some work to do, mr. chairman. thank you. >> receiving back 30 seconds.

senator mendez. >> i appreciate you holding this hearing. when these issues broke december, senator schumer and myself and do your self asked hearing.l this is extraordinarily important. rich, i have two particular lines that i want to pursue. i think senator war and open the door to something that i think is incredibly important, which is what role should the ftc and the federal government create with standard? it seems to me that whatever high standard exist in the marketplace readily available for technology is one that we would want buddies to follow in order to be sure of the security of millions of americans private information. critical information to themselves, to their credit

retailers, to banking institutions. standard that says, look at what is available in the expectlace -- we cannot a company that gets hacked and is already using the highest standards available in the market place to be held responsible. but if there was a standard available and that company or companies were not using that standard, then we have to question whether or not they made an in demand -- an investment decision not to go ahead and expand the resources for the higher standard. it seems to me that part of the question is, and i know that the private sector is largely -- has largely worked on creating its own standards, but is there a role for the ftc and the federal government to set a standard that says, look, whatever is existing in a market place that can, in fact, be achieved to give the highest protection available should be the standard

? and if you don't pursue that standard, then you are subject to the consequences thereof. >> that is incredibly similar to the way we think about it now when we talk about having "reasonable security." reasonable security means that you take into account what the risks are in your business, what the sensitivity of the information you collect it, how much information you collect, -- the cost and available availability of the measures out there in the marketplace. analyze it.we >> does the industry understand they will be held to those standards? theret get the sense that is an obligation per se to be held to that higher standard. >> one of the limitations we have in our work is we don't have civil penalties or the kind of sanctions needed to provide the right incentives to focus on

this issue. >> i want to get to civil penalties in a moment. if we set a standard that at , hereeveryone has notice is what we expect of you, then -- and of course ryszard industry-standard -- industry input into that standard, but it seems to me that we have notice notice ofcess, opportunity to be heard, and then we go away. i would like to pursue with the agency whether or not the standard is important, mr. chairman. secondly, with reference to additional authorities, in my letter to chairwoman mary meer as asking about the commission's efforts in the past -- chairwoman ramirez asking about the missions efforts in the -- it seemsced that

to me that she agreed that having authority to impose civil penalties would be a good authority to have. don't think that is something you want to levy against every company. i think he goes back to a standard. if you are pursuing a standard, you are not held responsible. if you are not, then civil penalties may be available. >> it is very important to have civil penalties available as a remedy for specific deterrence when there has been a failure. your testimony reasserts the federal trade commission's lone standing assertion borne out through case history. section five of the ftc act covers instances where a company fails to adequately protect consumer data. this assertion is based on the commonsense premise that

customers have an understanding that companies will take reasonable steps to protect their data and failure to do so would be unknown fair or deceptive practices. however, companies have been challenging this assertion. is the that if that case, that they will now challenge that assertion, it seems to me to call for not just voluntary efforts, but to create a standard and consequences of that standard that can give americans the best security they can hope for. i hope to work with the committee and the ftc in that regard. >> thank you, senator. one last comment. i know we have other questions, but we have a second panel. make one i will comment, and then if anyone's got a burning question. then we will go to the second panel. senator tester's comment, trying to get a notion of the obligation to disclose

when you have been breached, i think sorting that through is going to be a challenge. there are so many attacks every day. you've got to set a standard somewhere that you have crossed a threshold. the concern i have is that you don't want to create the -- for member the homeland security colorcode system that everyone proceeded to ignore? be a materiality peace. >> i agree with you. if a business withholds that information because it is in the heart of christmas shopping season and it will affect their bottom line, it -- they need to be hung out to dry. >> a man. -- amen. an earlier point that you made, senator menendez, where companies could have put a good housekeeping seal that may or may not be valid troubles me. we will move to the second

panel. thank you both. >> thank you. [captioning performed by national captioning institute] [captions copyright national cable satellite corp. 2014] >> if the panel does not mind, i'm going to go ahead and start

introducing you, even as you are getting in the process of getting seated. . will start introducing you gentlemen, thank you. focused onanel was our governmental witnesses. now we will focus more on industry and consumers. mr. james reuter. executive vice president of first bank located in colorado, where he's been since 1987. he is also the president of first data corp., which provides all i.t. and operational support services for 110 locations. duncan is executive vice president vice president and general counsel of the national retail federation where courtresponsible for

mating territory initiatives involving data privacy, bankruptcy, fair credit reporting, truth in lending. he previously worked for jcpenney and for the ftc. see.et'sleach admin or zeus came -- mr. is a recognized -- at on a wide-ranging wide range of issues. and mr. troy leach is the chief technology officer for the security standards council. this is the industry counsel for setting standards for now. he works to develop strategies to secure credit card data and works on i.t. issues. gentlemen, thank you all very much.

mr. reuter, why don't you start and we will go down the line. >> chairman warner, ranking member kirk, and members of the subcommittee, my name is james reuter, president of the support services at first bank in lakewood, colorado. inhave over 115 locations 2000 employees serving colorado, arizona, and california. my operation provides information technology, payment processing services, a 24-hour call center, and electronic banking services for 101st -- 115 first banking locations. i appreciate the opportunity to be here and to represent the aba. even with payment bridges, our payment system or main strong and continues to support the $3 trillion the -- that americans and each year with a credit and debit cards, and with good reason. customers can use these cards confidently because their banks protect them by investing in technology to detect and prevent fraud, reissuing cards, and

absorbing fraud losses. at the same time, these breaches have rignet at a long-running debate over consumer data security policy. the banking industry recognizes the importance of a safe and secure payment system to our nation and its citizens. we thank the subcommittee for holding this hearing and welcome the ongoing discussion. , protectingear customers is the banking industry's first priority. as the stewards of the direct customer relationship, the banking industry's overarching priorities with breaches like that of target is to protect consumers and make them whole from any loss due to fraud. banks swiftly research and reimburse customers for unauthorized transactions and normally exceed legal

requirements by making customers whole within days of customers alerting them. beyond reimbursing customers for fraudulent purchases, banks often must reissue cards for effective -- to affected customers. it is in -- it is at a cost of five dollars per card. in the end, things receive pennies on the dollar for fraud losses and other losses incurred while protecting their customers. in fact, banks bear over 60% of reported fraud losses, yet have accounted for over eight -- for less than a percent of breaches since 2005. more needs to be done to stop this kind of fraud in its tracks. at a national standard is an important step in this direction. in many instances, the identity of the retailer that suffer the bridge is either not known, or oftentimes intentionally not revealed by the source. understandably, a retailer or other entity would rather pass the burden onto the affected consumers banks rather than

taking the reputational hit themselves. in such cases, the bank is put in the position of notifying their customers that their credit or debit card data is at risk without being able to diebold where the breach actually occurred. to diebold where the breach actually occurred. often, customers blame the banks for the breach itself and any inconvenience they are now suffering. consumers electronic payments are not confined by borders between states. as such, a national standard for data security breach notification as contained in senate bill 1927, the daegis is 30 active truth out and 14 -- the data security act of 2014, is imperative. retailers must improve their internal security systems as the criminal threat continues to evolve. criminal elements are growing increasingly sophisticated in their efforts to breach payment systems. this disturbing evolution, administered by the target enhancedill require

attention, resources, and diligence on the part of all payment system participants. let me make one final point. protecting the payment system is a shared responsibility. thanks, retailers, processors, and all participants in the payment system must share the responsibility of keeping the system secure. that response ability should not all predominantly -- fall predominantly on the financial services sector. banks are committed to doing our share, but cannot be the sole bearer of that responsibility. policymakers, card networks, and all industry produced and have a vital role to play in addressing the regulatory gaps that exist in our payment system, and we stand ready to assist in that effort. thank you. i will be happy to answer any questions you might have. >> mr. duncan, please.

>> thank you, senator warner, ranking member kirk, members of the senate committee. electively, retailers spend billions of dollars collecting consumer data and fighting fraud. most of the data breaches we have seen are either at retailers that you've heard about, or at bank and card companies about which you have heard less have been perpetrated by criminals. the companies are victims. we need to reduce fraud. that is, we should not be satisfied with deciding what to do after a data breach occurs, who to notify and how to assign liability. instead it is important to look at why such breaches occur and what the perpetrators get out of them, so we can find ways to reduce and prevent not only the breaches, but the fraudulent act to the t that is -- the fraudulent activity that is often their goal. in the data breach report, 39% happenealed that at financial institutions, 24% at retail, and the remainder at others. it may be surprising to some given the recent media coverage

that it happens more at financial institutions and retailers, but these focus on banks because -- but the thieves focus on banks because they have the most sensitive information. in 2012, the u.s. accounted for nearly 30% of credit and debit charges, but 47% of all fraud losses. who bears these cost? independent studies very. retailers bear anywhere from nine percent to 40% of the payment card fraud costs. we think that a fair assessment is that retailers pay about half. why is fraud increasing? the thieves go where the rewards are plentiful and easiest to obtain. systemnately, our cart data is outdated and rife with opportunities for fraud. despite billions of dollars by merchants in helping to become pci compliant, we still have fraud prone cards that are attractive to thieves. unlike the rest of the world, the u.s. card still use a signature and magnetic stripe for unification.

on our system being so porous. even though the information is visibly printed on the car, even though security information can be lifted off a magnetic stripe by reasonably secured -- a 12-year-old, and even though security measures are virtually worthless, it is your response 32 guard that information at all costs. retailers work very hard to do it, but the request is not really make sense. what is needed is for the networks and banks to issue cards that are not so easily compromised. and at a minimum, we need to replace the signature and pin -- the signature with a pen and the magnetic stripe with a chip. even that won't be state of the art. it is three quarters of a old.ation but fraud dropped 70% when it was adopted in britain, and fraud is growing here because it has not been. we must adopted here. the pin authenticate the cardholder and that helps

protect the merchant. the chip protects the bank. together they greatly reduce fraud. the banks know this, nation is very powerful. they promote it all over the world, but here in the u.s. they are proposing signature and check cards. , as one of them cutely calls it. it is an ineffective half measure, the locking of the back door while leaving the front door open. why adopt a halfway measure? merchants would still need to that wouldipment combine 1990's technology with 1960's relic signature in the face of troy for sentry threats. the face of 21st century threats. if congress is really concerned about fraud, it ought to not fiercely consider this absurd solution. way to providene

security, but it relies on banks to protect their data. today's smart phones are small computers. if payment platforms are open and competitive, they will only get better. we lay out a number of proposals and are written testimony. it is important, however that the federal law should ensure that all entities handling the same type of sensitive consumer information, such as payment card data, are subject to the same statutory rules and penalties with respect to notifying consumers of a breach affecting that information. in closing, three brief points. first, retailers take increasing payment part -- payment card fraud very seriously. urchins already bear at least an equal if not often greater responsibility when there is fraud. we did not design a system or

issue the cards. we will work effectively to upgrade the system, but we cannot do it alone. second, the vast majority of breaches are criminal activity. no system is invulnerable to the most sophisticated and dedicated of thieves. consequently, eliminating all fraud is likely to remember -- remains an aspiration. nevertheless, we will do our part to achieve that goal. it is long past time for the u.s. to adopt pin in ship technology -- pin and chip technology. if the goal is to reduce fraud, we must in the minimum do both. x think -- >> thank you, chairman, and members of the committee. i have been working on these issues for some time. my views, i think, are somewhat in line with the merchant, but also somewhat not in line with the merchants. itself,he target breach

i want to make one point about that. withreach occurred information that allows fraud to take place on your existing accounts in the first 40 million consumers who were breached. the additional 70 million, the information that was collected allows phishing attacks to try to obtain more information to commit a density that. but i think the biggest risk to customers of target is fraud on existing accounts. the provision of credit monitoring, which they are giving for free, but is normally ,n overpriced junky product really create a false sense of security. it will not stop fraud on your existing accounts, and it will not stop i didn't eat that. it will simply tell you when your experience account has changed. it could be because of identity theft or something else, but it will be after the fact. that is 1.i wanted to make about the target breach.

is one thing i wanted to say about the target breach. and another thing about the target breach, they are not involved completely. i have seen different stories about whether they were or not in violation of the highest standards. we will know that when they testify in the next few days. but whether or not they were in violation of the pci standards, those standards were cobbled onto an obsolete technological platform. it is like trying to put disc t, airbags ondel edsel. constantly being asked to add different bells and whistles to an obsolete system from the mid-20th century. that is a problem that the banks and the card industry have a lot to answer to with these problems. i want to make a couple of quick points that are in my testimony. i was encouraged, chairman warner, when you mentioned the debit card

protections should be increased. we strongly support the idea that all plastic should be equal. the zero liability promise that banks make is just a promise. it is not the law. i only use credit cards. i never use debit cards. the other problem, of course, it with a debit card is that you lose money from your account until they complete their investigation. you could have other checks bounced. the second is technology neutral and technology forcing. you should have a form that encourages continuous increasing in the uses of better and better technology. and as mr. duncan pointed out, it should be on a -- an open and competitors should be allowed to come in. if you look at the networks, the two big ones are a duopoly. they have all of the standard characteristics of a duopoly. they seek excess rent and they don't like new technology and they don't like competitors. that has been a problem.

look at theshould pci standard setting body. to the merchants have adequate input into it? do the regulators or the ftc have enough review of it? you should not enact any new legislation that preempts state laws. if congress enacts a good enough to, it does not have preempts state laws. the states will move on. they will do other things. but if congress does not enact a good enough law, any of the states has first responders. my testimony will have -- has detail from 2003 when the fair credit reporting acted not include adequate identity theft reforms. for a six state passed breach laws. 49 states gave consumers the right to freeze their credit report. those were important things that the states did. whereas every bill that i've seen to some extent not only law, whichy breach is their nominal purpose, but

goes further and preempts any right of the states to do anything in the future. i think that is the wrong way to go. inther point that we make our testimony is that if you do and act a breach law, it should be on acquisition standard. this should not be a harm trigger. the company that did not protect my information should not be allowed to decide whether or not to give me notice. not make inat i do my testimony but i have made in previous testimony before the commerce committee is that i strongly support any effort to increase the ftc's authorities including the right to impose civil penalties for a first violation. thank you, and i look forward to any questions you might have. >> my name is troy leach. i am the cto of the pci security standards council, global industry initiative focused on security and payment card data. our approach to an effective security program is people, process, and technology as key parts of data protection.

our community of over 1000 of the world leading businesses tackles security challenges from simple issues, for example, the word password is still one of the most commonly used passwords to really competent issues, such as proper encryption. winter senate and tumors are upset when their data cards -- when data is put at risk -- we understand consumers are upset when their data is put at risk. we call on banks and merchants and others to proactively protect credit card data. remove cardholder data when it is no longer needed. protect iteded, then through a multilayered approach thatnnovative technology reduced incentive for criminals to steal it. let me tell you how we do that. the data security standard is built on 12 principles. everything from strong access to -- access control to monitoring networks, annual risk assessments, and much more. this is regularly updated through feedback from our global

community. standards thated cover payment software, point-of-sale devices, and secure manufacturing of cards. andeveloped standards guidance on emerging technologies like tokenization and .2 point encryption -- and point-to-point encryption. tokenization and point-to-point incursion work in concert with other pci standards to offer additional reductions. , ev chip, isology widely used in europe. it is extremely effective in reducing card fraud in face-to-face environment. that is why the pci council supports to plummet of the chip technology. however it is only one piece of the puzzle. implementation of the chip technology. however it is only one piece of the puzzle. need to include encryption, proper access, malware encryption, and more.

these are all addressed in the pci standards. used together, these can provide strong protection for payment -- payment card data. justt requires more than standards and technology. without ongoing adherence and supporting programs, these are only tools and not solutions. the council makes it easy for businesses to choose products that have been lab tested and certified as secure. the councils education and training programs have educated tens of thousands of individuals, including merchants, technology companies, and governments. we conduct campaigns to raise awareness about credit card security. the council welcomes the committees attention to this critical issue. the recent compromise underscored the need for a multilayered approach. there are clear ways the government can help. strongerle, by leading law enforcement efforts worldwide, particularly because of the low -- the global nature -- and threat, and bias by instilling stiff penalties for these crimes. activencil is an

collaborator with government. we work with mist, dhs, and many other government entities. and we are reduce you more. we believe the government of standards to protect credit card data is something that rabid sector, and pci specifically, is uniquely qualified to do. -- to protect the private sector, and pci specifically, is uniquely qualified to do. the recent breaches underscore of creditx nature card security. they cannot be solved by a single technology, standard, mandate, or regulation. he cannot be solved by a single sector of society -- business, policymakers, and law enforcement must work together to protect the interests of consumers. the committee focuses today on recent breaches, but we know terminals are focusing on the next attack. there is no time to waste. -- we know that criminals are focusing on the next attack. there is no time to waste. congress must act to combat

global cyber crimes that affect us all. we thank you for paying attention to one of the largest concert he issues of -- largest security issues of our time. >> i made this comment in my opening statement, but i would like to make it again with you sitting in front of me. it is my strong hope that as we approach this issue we recognize rather than pointing blame at way other that the only this is going to work to protect consumers and give them the havedence they need is to the banking and retail industry to collaborate together. we do not need another replay of a multiyear legislative battle when hackers are not going to take a timeout and american consumers are we going to be increasingly at risk. mr. leach, in the spirit of your comments, i'm going to do a

lightning round. i will ask you to keep your comments as close to yes or no as possible, recognizing of course, that there is not a single technology solution. c major medic decrease in europe in -- but seeing a dramatic decrease in europe in face-to-face transactions concerning fraud now that they have moved to the chip and pin method. what do you think of our country moving to that technology echo >> we have embraced the chip and pin technology. we have laid out a timeline that moves the industry thereby october of 2015. >> let's get there. heart chairman, i take to your comments about not pointing fingers in each group. as i said in my testimony, if we are to have effective

protection, it's got to be as you said, pin and chip. if you listen to the response that was just given, it only mentioned the chip. back door closing the and leaving the front door open. >> it sounds like you are saying yes to chip and pin. full chipsolutely to and pin, not chip and signature. but do not leave that as the ceiling. make sure you can get more. >> we are supportive of chip and pin technology as well. >> as i learn this, i want to make sure that i'm getting it. chip is different than chip and pin. are you supportive of chip and pin? >> we are supportive of chip and pin. in mind,ortant to keep though -- pre-k's i got it. i think that is great progress today. -- >> i got it. i think that is great progress today. i think we are all in agreement. i did not realize my debit card did not have the same protections.

i think again about the fact where the growth in debit cards is coming is with younger folks and the younger banking community who are potentially the most vulnerable. it would seem to me that equalizing cards on the same .tandard makes common sense give me a reason why not. as a practical matter, we invoke a zero liability policy. if you didon today, not authorize it, you are not responsible for it. >> i don't want to get you in trouble with the aba, but is that an endorsement of the equalization in truth in lending -- truth and reporting? >> i believe from the legislative perspective, the way we are all performing as banks, i'm not sure that additional legislation is needed, because we are adhering to a zero liability policy as a business practice. >> but there is no practical

reason why you would want to have a difference between different test of plastic. >> no. >> we believe it would be a good idea. >> i want to emphasize that chip technology is in the clear. we still need additional security protections to that. we are supportive. >> i would add, senator, that that zerohere is liability may not occur in all circumstances. it only -- it may only apply to notature transactions, pin-based transactions. that is the answer to the question debit or credit. debit means using a pin. credit means it's still a debit card, but you are using it on the signature-based credit card network. the zerolso look at liability contract and say, what if i had to violations in a year , do they honor the second one? to get some banks don't. -- because some banks don't.

>> interesting. i would like to get more on that. i have a question. we have focused on the challenges around the cards. i would make a comment, though, that the cards do add an extra layer of protection. because of some of the network and because of the technologies that may not even be fully up to snuff at this point, versus what achilles heel,al which is everyone moving toward online financial transactions. think about how many of us pay our utility bills or college tuition online. into the can get personal data information, that is something that there are no limits on, in terms of an exposure.'s we are much more vulnerable. expired, but i would say that chip and pin, a good step forward. continuing the notion that mr.

leach said, recognizing tokenization, and other abilities that are online transactions trying to put a level of protection is something that needs a lot more study. >> let me follow up with mallory. i agree with you that parliament has done a much better job than congress moving to chip and pin. i was struck by your comment that fraud was reduced in the u.k. by 70% by using chip and pin. for the love -- for those of friends in the u.k., -- for those of us with lots of friends in the u.k., you will see them pin out their card with the dispels the backwardness of the u.s. banking industry. how much would it cost your members to move to a full u.k. base chip and pin? senator, we would have to replace all of the card readers

in the store. there are approximately 3.5 billion retailers in the u.s.. many of them are just a one store location. others have a dozen on each floor. if you multiply that times approximately an average of 1000 or more per unit, several billions of dollars to replace those, and some amount of time. took fromgeneral, i your testimony that the retail federation would support making that move. >> we absolutely would. in fact, some retailers have already begun to install pin and chip readers in their facilities . >> let's identify the heroes. who was the first? >> i cannot tell you who the first was, but they tend to be larger retailers who experience more international clients, like home depot or best buy. >> i'm very supportive of moving

toward chip and pin. data on the u.k. when we saw chip and pin and face to face transaction fraud drop dramatically, it was like reading a balloon. you saw online fraud in the u.k. shoot up something like 30%. senator warren. >> i will just pick up on the same point about chip and pin. we understand why chip and pin works better. -- it seems that we are with we are years behind europe in developing adequate technology. the technology is out there, but applying it here in the united states. in yourteresting testimony, mr. leach, you said that you think that enters our best left to private organizations such as yours -- that standards are best left to private organizations such as yours. that is what we have done, and now we are way behind in technology and have become targets for data attacks from around the world. to should we leave this

organizations like yours? >> senator, that is a very fair question to ask. for us, we look at it as being people, processing, and technology. chick, not migrated to but we have advanced fraud monitoring tools, the best in the world, as well as looking at other measures that are more cost-effective, like tokenization. >> let me make sure i'm following you. i thought i had heard in this conversation that we were uniform in our agreement that the way we should go now is to chip and pin. and you are telling me we have other things we can do, which i'm not disagreeing with, but i'm asking the question -- why haven't we hit the basic chip and pin standard? that question is probably not for a standards body like myself. our role is to develop secure standing with what we have today.

>> fair enough, but your testimony was not just that we have great standards if someone wants to adopt them. your testimony, as i understood it, was that the standards should be left to private organizations and not the government to say you've got to meet the standards put out by the other organizations that we have developed in other ways. it sounds like to mean we may need some pressure from the government to make sure the toughest vendors are use. maybe i could ask the question, why hasn't not been adopted already in the united states? talk aboutlike to why the rest of the world is ahead of us on chip. robusts a very telecommunication system. years ago and other parts of the world they did not have as robust of a communication system. they deployed the technology to solve that problem. it was not driven by fraud measures.

has seen more breaches at retailers, we are embracing the chip technology here. the reason i keep living out pen data is it a static. the chip brings the compromised data useless. static element. i appreciate and support the ongoing debate on chip and would hate toi delay the deployment of chip technology on this one issue. it has the biggest impact on fraud. >> both parts of your question, let me make sure i understand your point. i understand you had reasons to go to chip early on. are you saying the banks have just now discovered that ship wouldn -- chip and pin

be the better solution? >> we have them working to were putting check technology and link out the timeline. 8ey are eight merely an -- million retailers. >> was only in 2011 that the banks figured out that it would be a more secure system? >> they were conversations before that. that is when the actual timeline was laid out. likes to europeans have done more to protect himself. to don't i invite mr. duncan andh in on t weathered ship signature would be a better approach. >> your signature is on the back of your card. if you lose it, there is a silver did -- there is an example there for them to copy. if you want security you have to have pin. areo the idea that there slightly different systems and we should not use both, imagine putting up her color alarms in

your house. you have one for protection in the doors and one for the window. why would you say this works differently? if you want security, you got to have a whole system. and ship.o have pin i'm flummoxed as to why anyone thinks otherwise. to me that the retailers have delayed, the retailer has delayed. >> thank you. i'm getting conflict and data here. employs of mythat constituents in montana that has 7% of their debit cards that were impacted by the recent breach. it was only 12,000 cards. in their particular case, it cost them about $60,000 to replace them.

it did not include any additional cost airing the cost of monitoring fraud. i got as breed happens, call from the credit union located in the heart building. it said your account has been breached. we think it would be wise if you issued a new credit card. we are very appreciative of that. they did. i actually visited was someone from the credit union. it cost about 30 million buck recent breach on them. that is not include any of the fees that were back there, because i asked the credit union. i said if this card is used somewhere else by somebody else charge, will up a i have to pay for it? they say they would keep -- they said they would take care of it fo.

the prospectsink are for a particular bank will get reimbursed for fraud cost? almost 65,000 cars. that came as a result of us learning more about the breach and customer demand. our call center, we took an extra 30,000 calls over 3000 -- three weeks. we have invested quite a bit. >> target has said they will customers were made hold and have zero liability. -- made whole and have zero liability. >> we has banks shoulder the responsibility. >> to target reimbursed you? .> no >> what has been your experience recovering fraud cosost? we recover very little.

pennies on the dollar. >> let's talk about the cards. i mean look. i love to pay in cash. i would rather pay in checks but that's not the way it works. up using my credit card a lot. i use credit cards almost exquisitely myself. and this is for you mr. duncan, our concerns about fraud -- are concerned about fraud, what is for venting them from doing more identity checks when you go to the checkout line? they do not even asked to look at my signature even more. they don't ask for a credit card. they do not ask for anything. a take the credit card and swipe it.

sometimes they just say you swipe it. are the merchant doing to help prove identity at point of sale? >> one thing we would like to do is have a pin identification. we think that would help. >> we don't right now. i think we can all agree there we would like to go that way. .e had a breach everybody at the table said they were concerned about it. the retailers are concerned, what are they doing to help stop the breach now? mentioned, there is a lot in your question. i mentioned we spend billions hardening the systems of the bad guys cannot get an ample information. we encrypt the information. in terms of signature at the checkout, card associations told us we are not allowed to ask for identity information along with

that. >> really? >> i guess they consider it a hassle of the consumer if we ask for additional information. some merchants do it anyway. >> they used to do it all the time. >> we are told we are not allowed to do it. >> that is interesting. i want to talk about the cost with the chip and pin. billion would3 cost the merchants, there are a lot of small merchant oaks out where-- folks out there that is quite a bit per machine. who would pay the $3 billion? would that be picked up by the retail association? for chip andupport pin? >> it will come out of the retailers bottom line. we would do it to improve security. they told us we may not reject a transaction based on the signature. looking at a drivers license,

you can still not reject it. >> it would be interesting to that outt -- flesh some more. you can ask for an opportunity. that is where the key is in a card. if i lose mine and you pick it up and use it, they are going to know. >> if it is a feminine handwriting, they would still have to accept the transaction. >> my handwriting used to be worse when i was left-handed. thank you very much. mention credit unions. we have lots of interest. we have testimony from credit unions and other organizations who have submitted for the record. thatld also point out second security check at the checkout, the cow many transactions are automated now. think how many

transactions are automated now. >> a lot of the times they didn't even take the card. >> or you go to the grocery store any checkout without a person. >> thank you. you have a big discussion on chip and pin technology that has been around more than a decade. it is widely used in western europe. i see several of you caution against adopting a similar standard bylaw that would lock in any specific technology. if we do not adopt a federal legal standard that favors one technology over another, couldn't we still have a standard a some performance? it bet point should considered and a reasonable security risk for a company not to be using chip and pin

technology or something that performs equivalently? senator, my testimony we definitely say we should not adopt a specific standard. i certainly think that i'm not the world's biggest expert that chip and pin is a higher standard and signature. if you have a technology forcing xander that it needs, that is a good way to go as long as it is an open standard that encourages more and better technology to go forward. what about the banks and the retailers? >> setting a specific technology standard is not a good idea because how quickly the fraudsters keep changing and adapting. as far as standard, we all do the best they can with the technology. i think that is fine.

we would like our partners to do the right thing and adopt chip and pin technology. earlier, a number of retailers are beginning to explore mobile as a possibility. we want to be careful congress would not do something that slowed down that transition to even more secure systems in the future. >> that is why i am saying not supporting a specific standard. i get the sense everybody is worried about congress will do. we are worried about you all will do. haves say retailers should more liability. i listen to retailers say banks should have more liability. screwed entity getting is consumers. a differentave paradigm as to how we get here. posing ato me as i was

question that creating some type of standard that does not necessarily lock you into a technology that may in time be a dinosaur but does ultimately create a standard of responsibility is important for both the banks and the retailers at the end of the day. know the card industry like setting its own standards. i understand why. at some point there is a responsibility to the consumers and the economy. it is not good for retailers, not good for banks, when we have data breaches. it is not good for the card companies in terms of confidence. i would like to hear, you ask whether the actual regulators should have a greater role in setting security standards. you raised the question of whether we should have a by the forcedard

of contract to all parties in the chain of possession of consumer financial data. isn't that part of the goal here? standard that a can be applied and we can ultimately make judgments? if there is a data breach, there's that the more you can do. he did all of the things you could. if you do not have a standard, we never know what is the right engagement by the banks and the retailers and protection of consumers. you areerstand conducting an ongoing series of hearings on thursday. the regulators are coming in. it is useful to ask them should there be a federal performance byndard that is enforceable the regulators? have thee regulators authority to look at, and maybe and to already, determine whether any industry-

standard body is performing adequately to protect the safety and soundness of the financial system? yes, i agree. institutionanking already have to comply with a number of data security standards. it is not only something that is written and we have instant response, but we are examined on a regular basis. that is why we are not opposed to setting standards we are already public -- standards. we are already obligated to follow standards today. >> i appreciate that. may i have one final question? it goes to you as a consumer advocate. have seen an economy that is increasingly data driven in storing andpanies

processing even greater quantities of consumer information, often against consumer wishes or even without their knowledge. financial service industry for example, we here at stories about data mining sources to form underwriting decisions. companies aggregate more data. the consequences of a breach become greater as it expands. reaches of atnce least two kinds of customer information. breaches of at least two kinds of customer information. what if the next breach involves information like purchase history or social security numbers? are you concerned about the rise of big data? what can we do to get consumers greater control over their data and reduce the chances of a breach and minimize the harm to consumers if a breach occurs?

should we be putting limits on what companies can store without a consumer's affirmative stance? >> you raise a question i could talk about for two hours. i hee end of my testimony, for to a recent federal trade commission comprehensive report on privacy and a paper i've written on this very subject of big data being used for financial decision-making. out, muchcan pointed of the big data that has been collected is now starting to be collected in mobile landscape as well. in addition to credit card information and virtual information about the kinds of things you buy with your cards, we now know where you are and what you were doing at any particular time. data is locational something i think congress should look at as well. i would be very happy to talk to you about this internet

ecosystem. andsed to be you had a bank a merchant and a credit bureau that have information about you. direct marketing companies but they did not have very and for much -- very much information. there are hundreds if not thousands of interconnected is this to business companies on the internet buying and selling information about you today and auctioning you off in real time to the highest at her. der. of them -- bider many of them are predatory businesses. i would urge the committee to hold a hearing on lead generation. you are taken to a site that just bids you out to the highest bidder. there is a lot of work that needs to be done. consumers need greater rights. there are some bills that are just parts of it. we would be happy to talk further on it. >> i can see there can be some

value to have some degree of information. i the same token, -- by the same token, i am concerned about the scope of where that information is in finding the right balance is incredibly important. i thank you for the indulgence. >> a couple of closing comments. we are just the first of what is going to be a series of hearings. the american public is very concerned about this issue. we can either do it in a collaborative fashion or we can do it in an adversarial fashion. i am not even saying congress versus industry and consumer groups. you all collaborating together. it is terribly important. i think we have seen today

across the panel there was a sense that we need to move aggressively to chip and pin. i cannot imagine chip and pin versus chip and a signature. it seemed like beta versus vhs. a little bit of that in the is not at chip and pin declaration of the early. u.k.nt that to the circumstance where they point- to-point fraud went down but online fraud went up. we have not seen the potential for mobility we have for online transactions. i was a technology guy. protection inumer that space at all. mr. mierzwinski, you may have gotten a win since they agreed

to put all cars to an equal standard. maybe we have made some small progress as well. i close out my comment with two points. if we think about this more holistically, i'm learning this notion of tokenization so there is encrypted data regardless of where your transaction take lace, is something we need to go through. you do not want to go out and buy a terminal that is going to be out dated six months or year from now. how you keep that in some sort of open system so it cannot be cobbled on. to aboutwe do not get whoever has the data, how will it be kept secure? were ever it's -- wherever it

stands, what are the obligations to keep that information in a secure fashion? comeic that we will back too. i want to thank my colleagues. i want to thank both the first panel and the second panel. this estimate was a $300 billion hit to our economy last year. it is a magically going to be higher. we need to get ahead of this. i look forward to working to find the solutions. thank you all. these letters will be added and the hearing is adjourned. [captioning performed by national captioning institute] [captions copyright national cable satellite corp. 2014]

conversations] >> tomorrow morning, representatives from target and neiman marcus will be testifying on capitol hill about cyber crime and privacy after some of their accounts were hacked. live at 10:15 a.m. eastern. we'll have that on c-span3. the house gaveling back in shortly. to suspension bills are on the agenda including one that would to pay in-state

tuition no matter where the residence. working on senate, the five-year farm bill, a vote to limit that debate expected at 5:30 p.m. possible passage could occur tomorrow. he for the house reconvenes, we're going to be taking a look at republican efforts to repeal replace the affordable care act. one of the latest proposals came last week from senators tom coburn, richard burr, and orrin hatch. we will watch as much of this as we can before the house gavels in back in. host: she joins us to have a look about some republicans to appeal and replace the affordable care act. who is behind this new refill? how is it different from others

that have been offer? coburn and orrin hatch and richard byrd say they to startueprint conversation particularly among senate republicans. on the house side, there have been repeal and replace measures floated. what they did have was dozens of for placement ideas, none of which i've really got a consensus among the caucus around that -- none of which have really got a consensus in the caucus around them. the senate is kickstarting a debate which means there could be one gop repeal and replacement plan. the affordability and responsibility empowering act. this looks to keep several inponents of obamacare existence after it goes through. what is in and what is out? guest: it does. it feels a lot at least at first you like the federal health law.

fe crafters at sunset and immediately try to tell people what is different about it. continue subsidies for people to buy private insurance. have adoesn't requirement for individuals to buy insurance or pay a penalty, he doesn't have a requirement that employers offer insurance or pay a penalty, which are forral t -- 2 key revisions of the affordable care act. a large number of people getting coverage. it doesn't have explicit requirements that insurance companies have everybody regrows of medical history and price the coverage -- regardless of medical history and price the coverage the same. after a one-time enrollment period, as long as they keep coverage, that is the real incentive to do it, then they will continue to offer what they

are getting. what it is not an explicit requirement on companies to do not an expose is a requirement on companies to do that and some people say that might be inadequate. host: what is out in terms of obamacare? you talk a little bit about it. how are republican selling this to their colleagues? three republican senators .ropose this it isn't as obvious as it might seem. there's certainly been a lot of political thinking in particular that once republicans offer and here the specific ideas, the opposition can shift to everything that is wrong with that. it is not an unreasonable thing to want to do but the political balance is whether they want to continue to be attacked by the president, for example, for not having alternative ideas, or if they want to start a debate

around the ideas they have. host: this came out right before the president costs did of the union address. here is what he said about the publicans attacking the formal care act. [video clip] i know the american people are not interested in refighting old battles. if you have specific plans to cut costs, cover more people, increased choice, tell america what you would do differently. let's see if the numbers add up. but let's not have another 40-something votes to repeal a law that is already helping millions of americans like amanda. host: president obama and his state of the union address last week. we are talking about this new proposal by a trio of republican senators to repeal and replace obamacare. louise radnofsky joins us from "the wall street journal."

we are taking your comments and questions on the phone lines are open. the clerk: senate 1901, an act to authorize the president to extend the term of the nuclear energy agreement with the republic of korea until march 19, 2016. the speaker pro tempore: pursuant to clause 8 of rule 20, the chair will postpone further proceedings today on motions to suspend the rules on which a recorded vote or the yeas and nays are ordered or on which the vote incurs objection under clause of rule 20. -- clause 6 of rule 20. for what purpose does the gentlewoman from indiana seek recognition? >> mr. speaker, i move that the house suspend the rules and pass h.r. 1791 as amended. the speaker pro tempore: the clerk will report the title of the bill. the clerk: union calendar number 194.

h.r. 1791. a bill to mend the homeland security act of 2002 to codify authority under existing grant guidance authorizing use of urban area security initiative and state homeland security grant program funding for enhancing medical preparedness, medical surge capacity and mass exablets. the speaker pro tempore: pursuant to the rule, the gentlewoman from indiana, mrs. brooks, and the gentleman from new jersey, mr. payne, will each control 20 minutes. the chair recognizes the gentlewoman from indiana. mrs. brooks: mr. speaker, i ask unanimous consent that all members have five legislative days within which to revise and extend their remarks and include any extraneous material on the bill under consideration. the speaker pro tempore: without objection. mrs. brooks: mr. speaker, i yield myself such time as i may consume. the speaker pro tempore: the gentlelady is recognized. mrs. brooks: mr. speaker, i rise today in support of h.r. 1791, the medical preparedness allowable use act, introduced by my colleague and the former

chairman of the subcommittee on emergency preparedness response and communications, the honorable congressman bilirakis from florida. this bill amends the homeland security act of 2002 to make it clear that grant funds under the state homeland security grant program and urban area security initiative may be used to enhance medical preparedness and purchase medical countermeasures. the emergency preparedness response and communications subcommittee held a series of hearings in the 112th congress on medical preparedness. the subcommittee heard about the importance of medical countermeasures from representatives of the emergency response community and this bill is in response to those concerns. in august, i held a field hearing in my district looking at central indiana's ability to handle a mass carkt event. ike the witnesses who -- casualty event. like the witnesses who held the hearing, these witnesses stress

the importance of building medical preparedness. as a result of this bill, grant funds could be used for items such as pre-deployed medical kits for first reresponders and their families, can caches of equipment, training exercises and planning activities. the grant items for these programs currently allows fund to be used for medical preparededness equipment and activities. this bill codifies those activities to ensure they will continue to be allowable and it will not cost any additional money to do so. we've seen the benefits that grant funds, including those used for medical preparedness activities, have provided when it comes to response capabilities. this was clearly demonstrated in response to the boston marathon bombings. and we know that the threat of chemical or biological attack is real. in fact, my subcommittee will be holding a hearing next week to get an update on the bio terrorism threat and preparedness here in this country. we must ensure that our first responders have the tools and

capabilities they need if such an event should occur. this bill has the support of several first responder groups including the international association of emergency managers, the energy association of fire chiefs, and the emergency services coalition for medical preparedness. i ask unanimous consent to insert their letters of support into the record. the speaker pro tempore: without objection. mrs. brooks: h.r. 1971 was -- 1791 was approved last year by a bipartisan voice vote. the committee approved an amendment offered by the ranking member of the subcommittee, the gentleman from new jersey, mr. payne, to ensure that in addition to protecting first responders, funds can also be used to protect vulnerable populations such as children. i urge fellow members to support this bill and i reserve the balance of my time. the speaker pro tempore: the gentlelady reserves the balance of her time. the gentleman from new jersey is recognized. mr. payne: mr. speaker, i rise in support of h.r. 1791, the medical preparedness allowable

use act, and i yield myself such time as i may consume. the speaker pro tempore: the gentlelady -- the gentleman is recognized. pabe -- mr. payne: mr. speaker this would formally recognize grant recipients under the state homeland security grant or urban area security initiative program to use the funding tone chance medical preparedness and medical surge capacity. although the federal emergency management agency also permits grantees to use these funds to enhance medical preparedness, this measure will give some predictability to grant recipients as they struggle to rebuild and maintain a robust medical response capability at the state and local levelful -- local level. additional i am proud to support this effort to provide resources that will equip our first responders with home medical kits. when disasters strike, they have an obligation to protect our protectors. we also have an obligation to

protect the most vulnerable in our communities. committee markup, ee h.r. 1791, the committee unanimously approved an amendment i offered. this amendment would ensure that resources are available to -- the he chance to elderly individuals with communities. i would like to thank the committee chair, mr. mccaul, and subcommittee chairman, mrs. brooks, for supporting my amendment. communities. i would like to thank the committee chair, mr. mccaul, and subcommittee chairman, mrs. brooks, for supporting my amendment. we would like to ensure that the needs of our school children and other vulnerable populations are adequately aaddress -- addressed in emergency preparedness and response plans. on behalf of the ranking

member, mr. thompson, i would also like to thank chairman mccaul for working with us to re-authorize the metropolitan medical response system, the mmrs. this program provided targeted grants to 124 highly populated jurisdictions to support the integration of emergency management, health and medical systems into an organized response to mass carkt events. events. am -- casualty the program -- casualty program. i sincerely hope that the next time we meet here on the house floor to address medical preparedness, it will be to consider bipartisan re-authorization legislation for the mmrs. as state and local governments continue to stretch their budgets to make up for the reduced federal support across many programs, we must make

sure that the public health community is prepared and equipped to keep our constituents safe. i look forward to working with my ranking member and the majority to ensure that the mmrs remains a priority for this committee. in the meantime, i urge my colleagues to support h.r. 1791 and with that, mr. speaker, i reserve the balance of my time. the speaker pro tempore: the gentleman reserves the balance of his time. the gentlelady from indiana is recognized. mrs. brooks: mr. speaker, i yield as much time as he may consume to the distinguished gentleman from florida, the sponsor of this legislation, mr. bilirakis. the speaker pro tempore: the gentleman from florida is recognized. mr. bilirakis: thank you, madam chair, i appreciate it. thank you, madam speaker. i must say, madam chair, you're doing an outstanding job chairing this committee. and thank you for your help on this bill and also i want to thank mr. payne, your father would be very proud of you today. he was a good friend of mine. mr. speaker, i rise in support of h.r. 1791, the medical

preparedness allowable use act, which amends the homeland security act of 2002 to make it clear that grant funds of the program and the urban security initiative may be used to enhance the medical preparedness and purchase medical countermeasures. i originally introduced the medical preparedness allowable use act in 2012 after a series of hearings on medical countermeasures in the committee on homeland security subcommittee on a emergency preparedness response and communications. at these hearings, we received testimony from representatives of the emergency response community on that importance of stockpiling medical countermeasures in the event of a w.m.d. attack. this includes pre-deployed medical kits for first responders and their families. similar to those provided to

postal workers participanting in the national u.s. postal medical countermeasures, dispensing -- countermeasures dispensing pilot program. the guidance for the homeland security grant prammed and the urban area security initiative currently permits this finding to be used to procure medical countermeasures and for other medical preparedness and medical surge capacity equipment and activities. however, this guidance is developed on an annual basis, as our chair said, and there is no geampt that these uses will be -- guarantee that these uses will be authorized in the future. that's why this bill is so very important. to be clear, no new finding is authorized in this bill. however, these expenditures authorize and -- authorized and codified by the bill we are considering today can make a big difference in the protection of the public, including emergency responders in the event of an attack and

there should be no doubt that grant funding may be used to support them now and in the future. as the former charpeman of the subcommittee on emergency preparedness response and in communications, i consistently find myself in awe of the first responders and the sacrifices they have made for the public. in the wake of vebs such as hurricane sand -- events such as hurricane sandy, i am going to ensure that congress do all it can to support those brave men and women. i am pleased that this legislation is supported by the emergency services coalition on medical preparededness and other organizationings -- preparedness and other organizations as well, but the emergency coalition service on medical preparedness works to ensure that we protect the protectors. and i also thank the ranking member for adding that great amendment because we must protect our children as well. i thank and commend, of course,

representative brooks, our chair, for her assistance with this bill and for her willingness to join me as an original co-sponsor. i thank you very much, mr. speaker, and i yield back the balance of my time and i urge that all members support this great, very important bill. thank you. the speaker pro tempore: the gentleman from new jersey is recognized. mr. payne: mr. speaker, i continue to reserve the balance of my time. the speaker pro tempore: the gentleman reserves the balance of his time. the gentlelady from indiana is recognized. mrs. brooks: mr. speaker, i have no further speakers. if the gentleman from new jersey has no further speakers, i am prepared to close once the gentleman does. the speaker pro tempore: the gentleman from new jersey is recognized. mr. payne: thank you. i have no more speakers. madam speaker -- mr. speaker, excuse me, sir, i yield myself as much time as i may consume. the speaker pro tempore: the gentleman is recognized. mr. payne: thank you.

mr. speaker, i urge passage of this measure as a small step to address gapping needs at the state and local level when it comes to medical preparedness. i urge my colleagues to support h.r. 1791 and i yield back the balance of my time. the speaker pro tempore: the gentleman yields back the balance of his time. the gentlelady from indiana is recognized. mrs. brooks: mr. speaker, as the gentleman from florida noted in his statement, this bill has passed the house the last congress by a bipartisan vote of 397-1. i hope members will once again express their support for the men and women who protect us every day by voting for this bill. i want to thank my ranking member for his dedication and his commitment to protecting the protectors, as he's so eloquently stated, and we certainly request that our fellow members support this bill and i yield back the balance of my time. the speaker pro tempore: the gentlelady yields back the balance of her time. the question is, will the house suspend the rules and pass the

bill, h.r. 1791, as amended. those in favor say aye. those opposed, no. in the opinion of the chair, 2/3 of those voting having responded in the affirmative, the rules are suspended, the bill is passed and, without objection, the motion -- mrs. brooks: mr. speaker, i ask for the yeas and nays. the speaker pro tempore: the gentlelady asks for the yeas and nays. 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 for what purpose does ed.

the gentleman from florida seek recognition? >> i ask unanimous consent to suspend the rules and pass h.r. 357, as amended. the speaker pro tempore: the clerk will report the title of the bill. the clerk: h.r. 357, a bill to amend title 38, united states code, to require courses of education provided by public institutions of higher education that are approved for purposes of the educational assistance programs administered by the secretary of veterans affairs to veterans tuition and fees at the in-state tuition rate. the speaker pro tempore: pursuant to the rule, the gentleman from florida, mr. miller, and the gentleman from california, mr. takano, will each control 20 minutes. the chair recognizes the gentleman from florida. mr. miller: thank you, mr. speaker. i yield myself such time as i may consume. the speaker pro tempore: the gentleman is recognized. mr. miller: h.r. 357, as amended, is a bipartisan package of legislation that

relates to improvement in employment and training programs for veterans. while there are many worthwhile provisions in this bill, i want to focus on section 4 and section 14, which ensures privacy of veterans who are being treated as a v.a. medical facility. -- at a v.a. medical facility. mr. speaker, our veterans have been a source of strength for our economy. the post-9/11 g.i. bill has given thousands of our veterans the opportunity to attend college or receive other types of vocational training at little to no cost to the veteran themselves. every dollar that we provide in education and training benefits to veterans under the g.i. bill goes right back into our economy when these veterans graduate and enter the work force. i think we can all call that a great investment. however, there are many veterans through no fault of their own who are forced to pay

exorbitant tuition rates to schools simply because of the transit nature of their military service and that precludes them from meeting some of the burdensome state residency requirements. mr. speaker, as most american families know, the difference between in-state versus out-of-state tuition at most public schools is immense. according to the college board, the average in-state tuition and fees at public institutions is now $8,655 a year. out-of-state students pay an 06 per year.21,7 since the post-9/11 g.i. bill will only pay for tuition and fees at the in-state rates at public schools, out-of-state student veterans could incur significant debt to make up that difference. i believe that this practice has got to end. the men and women who serve this nation did not just -- as

citizens of their own home states but citizens of all 50 states. the educational benefits they receive from the taxpayers should reflect the same reality. mr. speaker, many states are out in front on this issue, including my home state of florida. and i applaud the 22 states that currently offer some form of in-state tuition to veterans regardless of their residency. other state legislatures, again, as i said, including my home state of florida, are currently reviewing legislation to provide this benefit. it's my home that the house passes this bill and it will encourage those states to move forward. to that end, section 4 of the bill would require that in order for public colleges and universities to be eligible to receive payments from a veterans g.i. bill benefits that they must enroll them at in-state tuition fee rates. it is important to these

requirements. first, states would be permitted to require that student veterans show intent to become full-time residents of the state in which they are attending school. secondly, the in-state requirement would only apply to veterans who are attending college within three years of their discharge from active duty. these limitations will ensure that this policy not only targets the population of veterans that are most adversely affected by residency requirements following their military separation but also fairly recognizes states' legitimate interests in subsidizing public education for its tax-paying citizens. mr. speaker, i want to highlight section 14 of the bill which incorporates the text of bail that i introduced called the veterans privacy act. in june of 2012, a camera disguised as a smoke detector was installed in the room of a brain dead veteran who was in

tampa. now, upon discovering the hidden camera, the veteran's family was understandably outraged. when the veteran's family asked about the camera, v.a. officials said that the camera did not exist. then they changed their story and admitted that the smoke detector was actually a video came are a. and when further asked if the camera was recording, v.a. told the family that the camera was only monitoring the patient, it was not recording. only after inquiries by local media and the veterans committee did v.a. admit -- veterans' committee did v.a. admit it was recording the patient. they removed the camera in their room. i sent a letter from v.a. asking its legal authority to place a camera in the patient's room without their consent. v.a. replied that the hidden camera did not violate the law. i'm deeply disturbed at v.a.'s actions in response to the privacy interests of this veteran and can't help but

wonder whether similar incidents are happening across the country. that's why i authored this section which should direct v.a. to prescribe regulations ensuring that when veterans receive care from v.a. their privacy will not be violated by unauthorized video surveillance. mr. speaker, as i said, there are many other worthwhile provisions in this bill, and i defer to my colleagues on the floor this afternoon to highlight other remaining provisions. i thank my good friends and the ranking member of the committee and also mr. takano and everybody that's here today that are co-sponsors of this bill and helping us to move forward. i'm also grateful to leader cantor and speaker boehner for their help in bringing this legislation to the floor. with that i urge all of my colleagues to join me in supporting h.r. 357, as amended, and i reserve the balance of my time. the speaker pro tempore: the gentleman reserves. the gentleman from california is recognized. mr. takano: mr. speaker, i

yield myself such time as i may consume. the speaker pro tempore: the gentleman is recognized. mr. takano: as one of riverside county's representatives, a county that has the eighth largest veterans population in the nation, i proudly rise today in support of h.r. 357, as amended. this bill is a far-ranging bill that seeks to improve the lives of our veterans. h.r. 357 includes a number of measures that were considered by the subcommittee on economic opportunity and was reported favorably out of the veterans' affairs committee last june. i want to thank chairman miller of the full committee and chairman flores of the subcommittee on economic opportunity for their leadership. i especially enjoyed holding several field hearings last year with chairman flores in our respective districts. the veterans' affairs committee has traditionally been a bipartisan committee and i'm pleased to see that cooperation continues both -- as both

leaders helped bring this bill to the floor today. in the area of education, h.r. 357 would require all public colleges and universities using the g.i. bill to provide all veterans with in-state tuition rates. currently, veterans who have not established residency at the school of their choice must pay out-of-state tuition rates. in order to fulfill their military obligations, service members must uproot their families and periodically move throughout the country. this makes it difficult to establish residency for purposes of in-state tuition rates when veterans seek to use their g.i. benefits. by providing all veterans with in-state tuition rates, h.r. 357 will make it easier for veterans to choose the educational institution that best serves their needs. the new transition assistance program includes a five -- a mandatory five-day core program

of instruction that all service members are required to take. the education portion is an optional track available to all members but is not required. some separating service members may not have additional time to take an optional course. h.r. 357 would move the education track to the mandatory portion for veterans seeking to use their g.i. benefits which will ensure their g.i. bill benefits which will ensure that these veterans can make better choices regarding their education and assist them in making the most of their g.i. bill benefits. in addition, h.r. 357 also extends the veterans retraining assistance program for two months to better align the program with the traditional economic semester. now, in addition to these provisions, mr. speaker, i'd like to highlight two sections which i have sponsored and which are included in h.r. 357.

i believe these sections will also assist our veterans in terms of their education and in finding work after the separation from the military. section 6 is from the first bill i introduced, h.r. 844, the vet success enhancement act. this provision would extend from 12 years to 17 years the eligibility period that veterans with service-connected disabilities have to enroll in v.a. vocational rehabilitation and employment programs. veterans with traumatic brain injury or spinal cord injury often require years to complete rehabilitation and adjust to the new realities of day-to-day living. only then can these veterans consider returning to work. this provision will provide these veterans with the additional time they need to seek vocational rehabilitative services. section 7 is from another bill

i introduced, h.r. 1453, the work study for veterans -- for student veterans act. this section provides for a five-year extension of the veterans work study program at the v.a. as an educator, i know how important these programs are to students, to enable them to fit some part-time work into their academic term. the v.a. program pays veterans to perform a variety of tasks, including assisting other transitioning veterans by helping them with outreach. by providing support in the college office of veterans affairs, these students help others to navigate other veterans -- other veterans to help navigate the v.a. system. it is an important program to veteran students in my district and to thousands of others in schools across the country. the last provision that tackles transition issues would codify the major duties of the directors and assistant directors from the department

of labor's veterans employment and training services. at present, there is no standardization of the requirements and duties of these positions. h.r. 357 will provide more consistency in the services provided veterans by standardizing the responsibilities of these officials. in addition, codifying their duties -- in addition, codifying their duties, we en-- will enable us to better track their funding, review their performance and hold everyone accountable to the same standard. these are important changes to the educational benefits and transition services for our veterans and will better assist veterans in serving our communities and our nation after they leave service. finally, in terms of fighting veteran homelessness and improving v.a. medical care, h.r. 357 would clarify that veterans who are homeless and participating in the h.u.d. voucher program and those who are transitioning from

incarceration are eligible for services under the homeless veteran reintegration program, or the hvrp. i'm sure that all these veterans will find these services very beneficial as they look to begin the next chapter in their lives. h.r. 357 would require the v.a. to more consistently report diagnosed iseases, at v.a. facilities to make sure that outbreaks that may occur will be addressed sooner and more comprehensively. although we have expressed concerns of the enforcement mechanism in this, we can all support comprehensive notification. h.r. 357 also includes a provision that would protect a veteran's personal privacy by directing the v.a. to ensure that any visual recording made of a patient during treatment is carried out only with the full and informed consent of that patient.

thank you, mr. speaker. and i reserve the balance of my time. the speaker pro tempore: the gentleman reserves. the gentleman from florida is recognized. mr. miller: thank you, mr. speaker. i'm proud to recognize for two minutes the vice chairman of the full committee, a staunch supporter of veterans, not only in his community but around this country, gus bilirakis. the speaker pro tempore: the gentleman from florida is recognized for two minutes. mr. bilirakis: thank you, mr. speaker. thank you, mr. chairman. i appreciate all your good work on behalf of our american heroes. and i want to thank the ranking member for his work on this particular bill and all its provisions. mr. speaker, i rise in support of mother 357, the g.i. bill tuition fairness act of 2013. this is an important package of veterans legislation, and i'm a co-sponsored that works to increase access for our nation's heroes and the benefits they have earned through their service to our country. in particular, i want to highlight three sections of this legislation that i'm very proud to support.

h.r. 357 will make important changes to the g.i. bill program that will allow states to jump-start the process to provide in-state tuition to veterans. the bill will require that in order for an educational institution to receive g.i. bill funding, they must offer in-state tuition to veterans regardless of the veteran's residency. that's the least we can do, and i really appreciate the chair sponsoring this provision. mr. speaker, our members of the armed services are not given options as to where they will reside. they move coordinate to the needs of the military. . it is only fitting that when these veterans use their earned benefits they're not penalized because of residency requirements that they have no control over. h.r. 357 also provides an extension of the veterans retraining assistance program,

also originally sponsored by our chair. this important program offered 12 months of training assistance to unemployed veterans between the age of 35 and 60. again, it's the least we can do. during these difficult economic times, it is important that we do everything we can to assist our veterans and their job searches and retraining efforts. i also want to commend the chairman for another provision. it's the v.a.'s patient privacy act and of course we need to give our veterans the privacy that they so deserve as patients. and of course i'd like to urge all our members to support this great bill and i want to thank the chairman and the ranking member. thank you very much and i yield back the balance of my time. the speaker pro tempore: the gentleman from california is recognized. >> mr. speaker, at this time i'd like to yield three minutes to the gentlewoman from nevada, ms. titus, who is also the ranking member of the veterans

affairs -- veterans' affairs subcommittee. the speaker pro tempore: the gentlewoman is recognized for three minutes. ms. titus: thank you, mr. speaker. i'd like to that i are thank the tchareman -- i'd like to thank the chairman for bringing this bill to the floor and my colleague and fellow educator, mr. takano, for yielding to me. i rise today in support of h.r. 357, the g.i. bill tuition fairness act of 2013. as professor emeasure tus of political science at the university of nevada-las vegas, i know firsthand the importance of a college education. and i'm proud that my home state of nevada already has laws in place that allow all veterans, regardless of residency status, to pay in-state tuition while attending our public colleges and universities. i was fortunate to teach a number of our nation's heroes during my time at unlv. having these veterans in class was truly a win-win situation. our veterans are able to pursue a college degree to help them with their transition to

civilian life and their fellow students are able to benefit from hearing about the veterans' experiences in the military, on the battlefield and in foreign lands while they have served our country. i'm proud to be a co-sponsor of this important legislation that will improv our higher education system and help our nation's heroes. it will help them to acquire the skills and knowledge to compliment their experience so they can succeed once they leave the military. i thank you again for bringing this bill and i encourage all of my colleagues to support it. and i yield back the balance of my time. the speaker pro tempore: the gentleman from florida is recognized. >> thank you, mr. speaker. i'm pleased to recognize the chairman of the subcommittee on oversight investigation, the gentleman from colorado, for two minutes, mr. kauffman. the speaker pro tempore: the gentleman from colorado is ecognized for two minutes. mr. coffman: mr. speaker, i rise in support of this, in particular, section 13, which encompasses my legislation, the

infectious disease reporting act. section 13 imposes necessary requirements on the department of veterans' affairs to -- department of veterans affairs to report infectious disease outbreaks at their medical facilities. these requirements are a response to infectious disease problems at v.a. facilities that were uncovered by my subcommittee's investigations last year. the investigations highlighted a deadly outbreak of a disease at the pittsburgh v.a. from february, 2011, to november, 2012, that tragically caused the death of at least five veterans and inflicted as many as 22 others. according to medical experts, timely disease surveillance is critical to infectious disease control and delayed, incomplete or inconsistent disease reporting can compromise an effective public health

response and result in further infectious disease outbreaks. although it has become clearer, these deaths could have been prepresented with proper procedures, the v.a. failed to act appropriately within widely accepted medical practices. surprisingly, the v.a. is not required by current law to report the incidence of infectious diseases at their facilities to state and local public health officials. as one of the nation's largest health care providers, v.a. should set the standard for infectious disease reporting. however, they do not even participate in infectious disease reporting like all other medical facilities within a particular state. creating a public health risk to those localities with v.a. facilities. in response, section 13 requires the v.a. to report each case of an infectious disease in accordance with the laws of the state in which the

facility is located. the speaker pro tempore: the gentleman is recognized for an additional 30 seconds. mr. coffman: and failure to report will subject the v.a. facility to state penalties. these penalties are vital to ensuring the v.a. will comply with and improv their reporting requirements. given the v.a.'s recent inadequate responses to infect shuzz disease outbreaks -- infectious disease outbreaks, it is imperative that congress and our veterans demand improvements. therefore i urge full support of section 13 of h.r. 357 as well as passage of the entire bill. thank you, mr. speaker, i yield back. the speaker pro tempore: the gentleman's time has expired. the gentleman from california is recognized. >> mr. speaker, at -- mr. takano: mr. speaker, at this time i'm pleased to yield two minutes to a great champion of veatrans, mr. doyle of pennsylvania, the gentleman from pennsylvania, a former member of can se are -- of this committee.

mr. doyle: thank you, mr. chairman. i rise today in support of h.r. 357, the g.i. bill tuition fairness act. this legislation contains a number of important changes in v.a. programs that provide our veatrans with education, training, retabletation, disability benefits and housing and it deserves our support. i want to focus my remarks today on the disease reporting provisions in the bill. because i've been intimately involved with that issue. in november of 2012 the v.a. announced that there had been an outbreak of legion air's disease at a v.a. hospital in pittsburgh which i represent. shortly thereafter, i joined other members of the regional congressional delegation in requesting vexes into the outbreak -- investigations into the outbreak. the house committee on veterans affairs and the v.a. inspector general's office examineded the outbreak and the events leading up to it at length. the centers for disease control also looked into the outbreak

and determined that it had resulted in several deaths and more than two dozen illnesses. i want to personally express my great tude to my good friend -- gratitude to my good friend, jeff miller, oversight scub committee chairman kauffman, ranking member michaud, for being so response to have our requests for investigations and investigating the outbreak and holding hearings on it last year. in the end, the hearings and investigations identified a number of shortcummings in the way the outbreak was -- shortcomings in the way the outbreak was handled and the need to be addressed. one of the concerns raised was that for some time after the local v.a. facility knew it had the bacteria in its water supply, that v.a. patients had been sickened by it, it had not notified state or local health agencies about the outbreak. under current law, v.a.'s not required to make such reports which are required of all other hospitals. chairman miller, kauffman, roth

less and and i all agree that in the future the v.a. should be required to report outbreaks just like other hospitals already do. the language in this bill is the result of our discussions over a number of months. i believe that the need for this reporting requirement is obvious. i urge my colleagues to support this bill which will make this important change. mr. chairman, i would like to add by unanimous consent an additional statement into the record. on january 29 i was not present when h.r. 2642, the conference report for the federal agriculture reform and risk management acts, better known as the farm bill, was voted on -- farrm -- farm bill had been voted on. had i been present i would have voted no. i yield back. the speaker pro tempore: without objection. the gentleman from florida is recognized. >> thank you, mr. speaker. i want to thank mr. doyle for being on the forefront of this issue. i want to inquire of the chair as to the time remaining.

the speaker pro tempore: the gentleman from florida has 9 1/2 minutes remaining. mr. miller: thank you very much. the s time i recognize gentleman from the 12th district of pennsylvania for a rothfus. a half, mr. mr. rothfus: mr. speaker, i rise in strong support of our nation's veterans and the legislation currently under consideration. this legislation makes much needed reforms that will bring accountability and transparency to the department of veterans affairse are. over the past year i've -- affairs. over the past year i've worked with chairman miller and kauffman, congressman doyle, murphy, kelly and shuster, and local veterans' families to investigate the outbreak of diseases at the pittsburgh v.a. the v.a. office of the inspector general determined that systemic failures surrounding the outbreak led to tragic and preventable deaths of local veterans. we must do all we can to ensure that this does not happen again. chairman kauffman's infectious disease reporting act which i strongly -- coffmn's infectious

disease reporting act which i trongly support, this will have the v.a. following rules. today's legislation also builds on an amendment i offered last year which prohibits bonuses for v.a. executives. this money would be better spent in ensuring that our veterans are receiving the first-rate care that they have earned. i urge my colleagues on both sides of the aisle to vote for this legislation and i look forward to continuing the work with my colleagues in conference to serve our nation's veterans. i thank the speaker and i yield back. the speaker pro tempore: the gentleman yields back the balance of his time. the gentleman from california is recognized. mr. takano: mr. speaker, i reserve the balance of my time. the speaker pro tempore: the gentleman reserves. the gentleman from florida voiced. mr. miller: thank you, mr. speaker. at this time i'd like to recognize the gentleman from pennsylvania, a anyway very reservist himself, -- a navy reservist himself, mr. murphy, for three minutes. the speaker pro tempore: the gentleman from pennsylvania is recognized for three minutes. mr. murphy: thank you, mr. chairman. john, clark sonny, are n, william and mitch

the victims of legion air's disease outbreak at the pittsburgh v.a. health care system in 2011 and 2012. we can never really heal the emotional scars that these families have suffered. and the 21 additional families who had a member with a case of this disease. we can work to make sure something like this doesn't happen again. today's legislation fixes one of the flaws uncovered during this investigation and under this bill. v.a. hospitals will soon follow the reporting requirement as other medical facilities. this way public health authorities will know when a disease outbreak occurs and it cake immediate action. thanks to the dogged determination and diligence of chairman miller, congressman coffman, the house veterans affairs committee, the ranking member and my colleagues, we now know the legion jairre's outbreak was entirely preventable. the inspector general's report

revealed some troubling findings. the v.a. lacked proper documentation and maintenance of the water systems and the lack -- and they lacked proper informing of patients. further, the v.a. did not communicate with the hospital in the detection of the disease. this ises why this bill is necessary. because timely reporting and transparency requires adherence to the strongest standards. with this our work is not yet done. it's been more than two months since i last asked v.a. secretary to tell congress what has been done to hold accountable those who were responsible for this outbreak. his agency has promised to do so. congress is still awaiting answer. transparency and accountability are essential for the secretary to rebuild the trust in the v.a. we are grateful to our veatrans for their service and -- veterans for their service and grateful to the workers at the

v.a. hospitals. in this case, the failures of some are simply unacceptable. my hope is that through this bill, requiring -- requiring reporting in infectious caze cases will restore the trust the v.a. has to its veterans and families. it is so critically needed in order to make these essential changes. i ask for my colleagues to vote in support of this bill and i yield back the balance of my time. the speaker pro tempore: the gentleman from california is recognized. mr. takano: does the gentleman from florida have any additional speakers? mr. miller: mr. speaker, i have one more speaker at this time. mr. takano: i reserve the balance of my time. the speaker pro tempore: the gentleman reserves the balance of his time. the gentleman from florida is recognized. mr. miller: thank you very much, mr. speaker. i recognize the gentleman who is a stalwart supporter of the veterans in the state of pennsylvania and also the united states, for one minute, from the third district of kelly. ania, mike

the speaker pro tempore: the gentleman from pennsylvania is recognized for one minute. mr. kelly: mr. speaker, i rise in strong support of h.r. 357, the g.i. tuition bill fairness act of 2013, a bill introduced my my friend, representative jeff miller, chairman of the veterans' affairs committee. i wish to highlight section 17, the infect shuzz disease reporting act, a bill introduced by my friend, chairman of the veterans asee affairs subcommittee -- veterans' affairs subcommittee. the infectious disease reporting act is a bill i'm proud to co-sponsor. this commonsense provision is necessary to respond to infectious disease issues at v.a. facilities nationwide, including the deadly outbreak of the disease at the fitsburg's v.a. in 2011 and 2012, it killed at least five of our veterans and sickened as many as 22. this facility became ground zero for the veterans' affairs committee investigation which found gross mismanagement at the pittsburgh v.a. in response to the 2011 outbreak. this is particularly troubling to me as there are many veterans in my district whory lie on the pittsburgh v.a. for their health care. currently the v.a. facilities

are not required by law to report an infect shuzz disease at v.a. -- infectious disease at a v.a. facility. yet the university of pittsburgh medical center, only a few hundred feet away, is required to do this. mr. miller: i yield the gentleman an additional 30 seconds. the speaker pro tempore: the gentleman is recognized. mr. kelly: this makes no sense. it leaves the v.a. off the hook. in other words, the bill holds v.a. facilities accountable to the same standards as other medical facilities located in the same state. this just makes sense. our veterans, who have sacrificed so much and deserve far better, this bill is a step in the right direction to ensure that veterans receive safe, high-quality health care at v.a. i urge strong support of h.r. 357. thank you, mr. speaker, and i yield back. the speaker pro tempore: the gentleman yields back the balance of his time. the gentleman from california is recognized. . mr. takano: mr. speaker, in closing, h.r. 357 makes important changes to the benefits and services we provide veterans and to the

manner in which we provide them. i urge my colleagues to support h.r. 357, as amended. i have no further speakers, and i yield back the balance of my time. the speaker pro tempore: the gentleman yields back. the gentleman from florida is recognized. mr. miller: thank you, mr. speaker. i ask unanimous consent that all members may have five legislative days to revise and and add ir remarks any extraneous material they may have on this legislation. the speaker pro tempore: without objection. mr. miller: and thank you for all the members who've come to the floor today to support this bill. i encourage all members to support this legislation and yield back the balance of my time. the speaker pro tempore: the gentleman yields back. the question is will the house suspend the rules and pass the bill h.r. 357, as amended. those in favor say aye. those opposed, no. in the opinion of the chair, 2/3 having responded in the affirmative -- mr. miller: mr. speaker. the speaker pro tempore: the gentleman from florida. mr. miller: on that i request the yeas and nays. the speaker pro tempore: the yeas and nays are requested. all those in favor of taking this vote by the yeas and nays will rise and remain standing

until counted. a sufficient number having arisen, the yeas and nays are ordered. pursuant to clause 8 of rule 20, further proceedings on this question will be postponed. pursuant to clause 12-a of rule 1, the chair declares the house approximately

lawmakers agreed they suspend the bill. they didn't come back with a clear strategy. they mulled over various options, all of which are smaller in scale. changesas are smaller overhauls.th care

there is wider awareness they will not get policy concessions. volume bute some they can pass some increase in the borrowing limit. there is more of an awareness [inaudible]

when might we see something in committee? rex it probably would not be until early summer. there was a fairly positive reaction to immigration principles. the content of what has republicans proposing which is not [inaudible] citizenship for illegal immigrants but some sort of legal status. it met relatively favorably with the rest of the conference. there are people who have a deep distrust of the white house and president obama and they are concerned about if they pass something can they trust the white house to implement it fairly so some of the emerging concerns at the retreat. we are unlikely to see this

happen before the primary elections but there is potentially window when house republicans could take this up on the floor. out have passed five bills of committees but none of those have been considered on the floor yet and there are other bills in the works that have not yet made it to the committee level. >> we will switch to the senate. they are working on the details of the "farmville". have you heard any plans to defeat it? rex i think the farm bill is in safe territory. it has been a long and bumpy road. instead of big changes in the "farmville" emma it ends the system of direct amen in which the government regardless of the weather or the crop yield and

because it was considered [inaudible] and that it did not distort the market. prod farmers to plant any more of one kind of crap to get subsidies put it was politically unpopular. are beefing up the crop insurance program. that was a little bit of an unknown of, to will cost taxpayers. the defendants say it is better than having to provide ad hoc assistance. the other big component of the farm bill is the money for food stamps which is a political fight this year. ultimately they will cut a billion dollars in foodstamp funding which is small enough to get many democrats on board who had balked at the earlier bill version had $40 billion in cuts.

that is horrible to get it across. >> you can follow her on twitter wsj.com.tores are for joining us. >> we heard from treasury secretary jack lew. he talked about raising the debt ceiling. >> in just a matter of days the temporary suspension of the debt limit well and. the treasury department will have to use extraordinary measures so the government will meet its obligations. there are trust funds that can be deferred. emma netme time spending which varies from month

to month determines how quickly the headroom provided by extort very measures will last. unlike other recent times we have had to use extraordinary measures to continue financing the government, they will give us a reef span the four we ran out of burrowing authority. span before we'll run out of borrowing authority. tax refunds result in cash flows that deplete burrowing capacity very quickly. we forecast where likely to exhaust these measures by the end of the month. report issued last week came to the same conclusion. even though these are estimates it is clear that extraordinary measures will not last for a long. after we exhaust this burrowing capacity, we will be left with only the cash we have on hand and any income and revenues to meet our countries commitments. notably, we expect our outlays over the coming weeks to exceed our net inflows largely due to

the payment of tax refunds. we will draw down our cash balance faster than it other times of the year. at some point very soon, it would not be possible to meet the obligations of the federal government. i was in a car wreck that i wrote about extensively. the whole time i was in the i had a cut in my leg and a broken ankle. i was praying that the other person's car would be ok. in the carer person was one of my best friends which i did not know. i did not recognize that at the time of the crash. because they prayed over and over for him to be ok, he was not. i thought nobody was listening, god was not listening. i went through a very long time

of not believing and not believing that prayers could be answered. lot of going back -- growingup erie it up. watch our recent interview with mrs. bush at the george w. bush presidential center in dallas at 10:30 p.m. >> the winter olympics began begins friday. they talked about preparations and possible terrorism threats and he said russia's anti-gay laws are mild when compared to some southern states in the u.s.. >> one of the principal reasons that governments compete and spencer much money to get the olympics in their countries is that they want a lot of

attention. clearly, government's make calculations that it is going to be positive attention and it will be worth it and it will be worth, and rush's case, the $50 billion -- in russia's case the $50 billion they have spent. case, if you set aside the u.s. and the west, it looks like it may well have been a good investment. their ambassador is president 'sudent's top policy -- putin top policy aid. aree are 85 countries that participating. six i -- 60 out of 85 is a lot.

highlights is u.s. perhaps in how the and the west look at russia and how many other countries around the world look at russia. the kinds of attention that the united states and western countries give to russia and the kinds of attention that russia gets elsewhere. my mandate on this panel is to talk specifically about human rights. russia'sy clear that human rights practices get much more attention in the u.s. and the west than they do elsewhere. in the case of this particular olympic games, the issue of gay rights has gotten enormous attention.

in the united states and western media. it start -- starkly illustrates some of these differences. i want to talk about that for a few minutes. i don't approve of russia's so-called gay propaganda law. i have a lot of other reservations about russia's human rights practices. when you look at attitudes in russian society on these issues, it should hardly be surprising that the political system would produce the laws that it has produced. areof people in russia opposed to regular gay pride parades in their cities.

77% of people in russia are opposed to same-sex marriage. 40% of people in russia believe that gays and lesbians should have fewer rights than others. support criminal prosecution. it is an environment in which this legislation comes forward. and looku come forward at the law, it has been very broadly supported within russia. managed to capture the 80% share of the russian who i guess are happy watching parades of tanks but less happy watching gay pride parades.

on the other hand, reversing the post-soviet decriminalization of , rememberingnduct that it is criminal conduct in a very large part of the world, including in india which we frequently talk about as the world's largest democracy. let me skip talking about the law specifically. we can talk more if people have questions about that. certainly, when you look at public opinion and as thatlation, you find russia falls somewhere in between the united states and andwest on one hand particularly middle east and

africa on the other. at least in terms of public attitudes. it is tooon't think surprising that russia's legislation should follow russia's public opinion. what i think is an interesting me, when at least for we look at russia and other countries in the world, why we focus on these issues in different ways. it is a different priority for legislation and universally applied. i expect from a certain perspective that that is true.

when there are a certain number of relationships around the world that the united states has, this is an issue that has particularly come to the fore in the case of russia. and certainly not only on the part of the administration but also on the part of the media. why is that? back, in manys ways, to an issue raised about our real uncertainty about where russia fits. andussia part of the west part of western civilization? or isn't it? i think there is a very strong to seeion on some issues russia as outside of the west. and in other areas a strong temptation to see

them as part of the west. we see conduct by the government and human rights practices and other things that don't line up. think it is especially frustrating for many people like an itch that they need to keep scratching. now looking concretely at the , the climate that has emerged around this set of issues and the very widespread treatment of the gay and lesbian citizens.

they try to express their views on that issue. athletes are in a very particular situation. i think it will be more challenging for many of them to express their views openly because of the olympic charter. about taking clear demonstrations and other political activity during the olympics. and a modification that was introduced to the charter, from what i understand was a strong initiative during the cold war time. spectators also will be in a somewhat challenging situation in expressing their views.

this connects a bit to what bruce was talking about. you have sochi inside this ring of steel with tens of thousands of armed security officers --ing to protect everyone and very importantly -- from a real risk of terrorism. there is this force that has been assembled and trained for that purpose. is that going to be the best possible force dealing with protests that may come up? i think that is something certainly to be concerned about as the games go on. we will have to see what happens. certainly, the russian

is trying i am sure its very best not only to avoid terrorism but also create an environment in the spirit of the attention that is coming with russia that is going to create the best image for russia. i am sure they will try very hard to ensure that everything goes off without a hitch. it is a very complicated mix ,hat will be brought to bear and something for us to watch very closely in the weeks ahead. >> [indiscernible] i actually felt that we were, perhaps, still optimistic. and i will go to a point made by john at the beginning that what

is happening now with russia and the united states, maybe you know. is, can you sit still on a bicycle? can you sit still on a bicycle indefinitely? especially when there are so many pressures to move in some direction. grant madison just had a piece interest where he talked about the history of great power relations. and you have one rising power. if you look during the last 500 years, we came to the conclusion that out of this, 11 have

resulted in a war. i have decided to do something different. i have tried to look to the best of my ability at cases of relations between major powers like agent greece -- ancient greece. the effect is not a status quo power, but in reality, a revolutionary power. and another revolutionary vision is power. in my analysis, all these cases, without a single exception, result in more. -- in war. i think it is difficult to claim that the u.s. and the european union conduct in the case of the ukraine is a status quo power.

not alwaysainly is being seen in moscow. russia cannot be an empire. , think there are russians however, that would be thinking in those attempts that they said probably say what was when there was a sweetness in -- swedish invasion of the ukraine and a real possibility because some ukrainian cossacks try to support the swiss. if we allow the ukraine to go and be dominated by another , would thatr

represent russia itself? that is how the stakes are being pursued. i think since it is 2014 where 100 years away from world war i, we have to be very careful not to assume that since we don't want something, nothing is going to happen. russia,ry is not about per se. the first toin is it knowledge that. is very simplistic because we don't have enough time and we have a lot of things to discuss. them mention that china today is germany under kaiser wilhelm.

clearly rising power with considerable ambition. i don't want to offend my russian friends but russia is a little bit like [indiscernible] not obviously because it is in real do klein and it has nuclear weapons, but because it has considerable economic success in recent years. not recently, but still. insecure only feels this periphery. and when you have a power like equations, when russia people a serious power, think that they can do whatever --hout russia being able--

[indiscernible] particularly when you have a great power like china would you feel -- when it feels like it is being subjected to containment. i think we have to be aware of the geopolitical forces when we are thinking about u.s. russian relationships. it is working against american interests. carefulave to be very defining american priorities and assigning which geopolitical ventures we should be prepared to pursue. should try to do something -- not just ask what

we are entitled to do because we have the right, but ask where we are going to be. the other side will respond not in a way we like. >> [inaudible] i have heard a couple of points and i don't have time to respond to each and every one of them. >> these don't. don't.se [laughter] >> there are a couple of things that are outwardly disappointing. there are things that i am witnessing participating. on friday, i hope we will start

a wonderful event for sportsmen and for friendship. and it is going to be successful. suggesting that there are three aspects that are very interesting. a "homophobic" and russia. is it in the united states interest on how i will prepare for the olympics? about thehome running way to redo russia.

and being here, listening to the same thing. the correction, give me evidence. it is expensive, something our american friends never cared to look into. a lot of visitors welcome. unique anty opportunity to encourage

investment into regions that have been fantastically attractive in terms of the geographics and the environment. map.ook at the russia doesn't ensure to many areas within its own territory. sochi and 700 kilometers to the south and north. we wanted russians to have a chance to go and enjoy sports and enjoy within its own country. we wanted the national teams to have a training ground.

[indiscernible] i would say that the olympics is going to be a big event. but in two weeks, it will be over. but it is going to stay for our people to enjoy. invested,that were they have paid less than half. invest -- there is an additional 40,000 rooms capacity. we enjoy leadership now in , and my president is one

of them. it you wanted to use the olympics in order to generate more interest in sports. it will be more healthy and it is also an important event internally. you also discussed the importance of olympics in russia making a case for its importance. it is more for us than just the power play and the positioning on the world arena. listening to the debate about , if people think we

don't understand it, we do. we understood from day one. i think those that cordoned the right [indiscernible] and we do it with absolutely open eyes. lot.ve invested a it is going toe be [inaudible] [indiscernible] sochi? it unique to associa it sounds like, it is only in sochi. i'll swear in the world, it is almost nonexistent. world, it isin the

almost nonexistent. look at the super bowl the other day. in terms of the number of people they were protecting, the density was much higher. hasuse the united states concern about possible threats of terrorism in this country. if you did not decide to cancel the super bowl because it is an event for people to enjoy, it is a popular event, it is wonderful that you take measures to deny the chance of terrorism. it we do the same. and we are going to succeed. is something that i am listening and very much disappointed. nonissue because nobody

is going to be discriminated against on any basis. the only thing that is to try to teach a different lifestyle to minors that have not yet grown to make their own decisions. in terms of the behavior of chartern, the olympic prohibits -- i think it is propaganda1 -- any and the next one nation as to what might be an olympic punishment. and also what is important to , they respect the roads

of the country and the people that live there. i am pretty relaxed about this issue because to me, it is a nonissue that has been blown out of proportion. it is something i have been telling my american friends all .long a look at a number of american ours is sohe south, mild compared to years in the united states. cushion aspolitical to why this country or some others try to teach us something that they cannot accept on a universal basis in their own country. i understand i am taking too

much of your time. i will finish. tom said that the new characteristics, we lost interest with each other. that to thee with full extent, but i agree that we must have interest in each other. whether it meets that kind of sentiment or not, i don't know. there is a very easy tendency to define russian and american relations in terms of over a regional crisis or something else. but we work together, we do not

agree on the best outcome. and they are not yet developed to the extent as far as i am concerned as what we could have had. we worked not only on the international agenda, we all played a role. it is still miniscule. it is almost nonexistent. it is very limited. there is no basis for the cold war aggression and it is something that i do not miss. we have yet to establish a more positive agenda.

es. only working on crisis both presidents want this relation to develop and they want them to become more prominent. . hope that we will see some in the long run, i am not sure that they are changing to the worst, they will change to the better. .t will take time it will not work overnight. we will have to work on the withs that are related

mutual threat. >> thank you for the former presentation. and particularly for a note of optimism that is our first today. >> i would be inclined to say that i just want to hear the discussion but you might think that i am ducking. from his perspective, it really is helpful. i am going to disagree on two points with tom or clarify. iran, i think it is the exact opposite.

it is not that the u.s. and russia disagree on the outcomes. we agree on the outcomes in each of the cases. where we disagree are the challenges with how you get to those outcomes. that is where the diplomacy and negotiation is. we agree without a nuclear a peacefulgram and program that is under appropriate international law. have different views on how you get to that. we have worked out a common approach. we agree that we want syria with a government that is answerable and accountable to its own people. we agree that it can only be reached through a political process. >> we will go to the floor of the house where they are gaveling in for two votes. yeas and nays. the first electronic vote will be conducted as a 15-minute

vote. remaining electronic votes will be conducted as five minutes d votes. -- five-minute votes. the unfinished business is the vote on the motion of the gentlewoman from indiana, mrs. brooks, to suspend the rules and pass h.r. 1791 as amended on which the yeas and nays are ordered. the clerk will report the title of the bill. the clerk: union calendar number 194, h.r. 1791, a bill to amend the homeland security act of 2002, to codify authority under existing grant guidance authorizing use of urban area security initiatives and state homeland security grant program funding for enhancing medical preparedness, medical surge capacity. the speaker pro tempore: the question is, will the house suspend the rules and pass the bill as amended. members will record their votes by electronic device. this is a 15-minute vote. [captioning made possible by the national captioning

institute, inc., in cooperation with the united states house of representatives. any use of the closed-captioned coverage of the house proceedings for political or commercial purposes is expressly prohibited by the u.s. house of representatives.]

the speaker pro tempore: on this vote, the yeas are 388, the nays are two. 2/3 being in the affirmative, the rules are suspended, the bill is passed, and without objection, the --

the speaker pro tempore: on this vote, the yeas are 391, the nays are two. the bill is passed and without objection the motion to reconsider is laid on the table.

the house will come to order. he house will come to order. he house will come to order. he house will come to order. the chair would ask all present a ise for the purpose of moment of silence. the chair asks that the house now observe a moment of silence in remembrance of our brave men

and women in uniform who have given their lives in the service of our nation in iraq and afghanistan and their families and all who have served in our armed forces and their families. the speaker pro tempore: thank you. take your seats. five-minute voting will

continue. the unfinished business is the vote on the motion of the gentleman from florida, mr. miller, to suspend the rules and pass h.r. 357 as amended on which the yeas and nays are ordered this eclerk will report the title of the bill. the clerk: a bill to amend title 38 of united states code to provide portions of education that are approved for purposes of the educational assistance program administered by the sec retear of veterans affairs to charge veterans tuition and fees at the in-state rate. the speaker pro tempore: the question is will the house suspend the rules and pass the bill as amended? members will record their votes by electronic device. this is a five-minute vote. [captioning made possible by the national captioning institute, inc., in cooperation with the united states house of representatives. any use of the closed-captioned coverage of the house proceedings for political or commercial purposes is expressly prohibited by the u.s. house of representatives.]

the speaker pro tempore: on this vote the yeas are 390, the nays are zero. 2/3 of those voting having responded in the affirmative, the rules are suspended, the built -- the bill is passed and, without objection, the motion to reconsider is laid on the table.

without objection, the title is amended. he house will be in order. for what purpose does the gentleman from texas seek recognition? >> mr. speaker, i send to the desk a privileged report. the speaker pro tempore: the clerk will report the title. the clerk: report to accompany hose resolution 470. resolution providing for consideration of the bill, h.r. 3590, to protect and enhance opportunities for recreational hunting, fishing and shooting and for what purpose does. the speaker pro tempore: referred to the house calendar and -- for other purposes. the speaker pro tempore: referred to the house calendar and ordered printed. the chair will now entertain requests for one-minute speeches.

for what purpose does the gentlewoman from florida seek recognition? ms. ros-lehtinen: address the house for one minute and revise and extend my remarks. the speaker pro tempore: without objection, the gentlewoman is recognized for one minute. ms. ros-lehtinen: thank you very much, mr. speaker. to the sound of cracking clause, joe stone crab, a famous and especially delicious south beach institution, has made its daw by a here in the nation's capital. over 100 years ago in 1913, joe and jenny weiss started a lunch stand on miami beach that has become a south florida icon as recognizable as south beach, little havana or the everglades. many families view the opportunity to dig into a plate of joe's stone crab as a special treat, especially because they have the -- they have to save up their money for a while to get to joe's. south floridians are proud to support joe's because even after 100 years, it is still a

family-owned business, one that treats their nearly 400 employees like they are part of that family. so to all of my congressional colleagues, if you cannot make it down to my sunny and warm miami congressional district to try these delicious stone crabs, at least you have the opportunity to get a taste of what you are missing in our tropical paradise through a brand new joe's in downtown miami. and downtown d.c., come and enjoy what south florida has to offer. the speaker pro tempore: for what purpose does the gentleman rom washington rise? without objection, the gentleman is recognized for one inute. the house will be in order. the gentleman is recognized.

mr. mcdermott: mr. speaker, in the seattle tradition, i would like to rise and recognize the football game that was played last night in new jersey. our team played very well and none -- no one in seattle was the least bit surprised at the results. i yield back the balance of my time. the speaker pro tempore: for what purpose does the gentleman from pennsylvania seek recognition? mr. thompson: request unanimous consent to address the house for one minute, revise and extend. the speaker pro tempore: without objection, the gentleman is recognized for one minute. mr. thompson: mr. speaker, today i rise to welcome encouraging news from the army. on a problem our military has faced for over a decade. the increase of suicides. it was announced today that since the -- for the first time since twure, suicides in the army has decreased -- 2004, suicides in the army have decreased.

this is great news but it is just a first step and a lot more must be done. mr. speaker, even one soldier taking his or her own life is a tragedy. but 150 is still an epidemic, especially one where one in five will never deploy -- were never deployed. that number increases further if you include the guard, reserves and other services. not only must congress do more to address this issue, this country needs to focus more on the overarching issue of mental health. as this congress moves forward, i will continue to work on this issue. and intend to introduce legislation again dealing with mental health assessments during initially enlistments. we must keep faith in the promise to take care of these individuals who step forward to save our nation. and i yield back. the speaker pro tempore: for what purpose does the gentlelady from texas seek recognition? ms. jackson lee: i ask to address the house for one minute. the speaker pro tempore: without objection, the gentlelady is recognized for one minute. ms. jackson lee: thank you, mr. speaker. i'd like to take this

opportunity to congratulate united states attorney general eric holder and president obama for joining with voices, particularly those of the house judiciary committee, republicans and democrats, and acknowledging that the united states exroistexroses only 5% of the world's population but we incarcerate almost 1/4 of the world's prisoners. while the entire u.s. population has increased about 1/3 other over the last 30 years, the federal prison population has increased at a staggering rate of 800%, currently totaling nearly 216,000 inmates, currently operating at a 33% over capacity. 1/2 of those federal prison populations are drug offenses. while some of them are truly dangerous persons, as a deputy attorney general said, many of them are first-timers and possession-only, that wound up on the federal laws, the crack cocaine laws, in the federal system. today i stand to support the clemency offering that is being

offered by the department of justice as well as to reduce barriers in housing and access to health care for those who will be released. i ask my colleagues to join me in working to ensure that we get word out to these individuals and their families to make sure that this clemency works and works in the right way, mr. speaker. with that i yield back. the speaker pro tempore: for what purpose does the gentleman from texas seek recognition? without objection, the gentleman is recognized for one minute. >> mr. speaker, recently president obama said that marijuana is no more dangerous than alcohol. however, the white house's own website gives numerous examples to the contrary. mr. smith: first, marijuana use, particularly chronic use that begins at a young age, can lead toing metive health consequences such as dependence, addiction, respiratory illnesses and congressnytive impairment. second, marijuana is not a benign drug and it is the second leading substance for which people receive drug

treatment. third, in the past 20 years, marijuana potency has tripled, leading to serious public health concerns. fourth, long-term use, particularly in adolescents, may be linked with lower i.q. later in life. mr. speaker, comparing marijuana to alcohol, as the president did, will only encourages i a use -- its use and endanger the health of many mericans. the speaker pro tempore: for what purpose does the gentleman from texas seek recognition? >> i ask unanimous consent to address the house for one minute and revise and extend my remarks. the speaker pro tempore: without objection, the gentleman is recognized for one minute. >> thank you, mr. speaker. mr. speaker, in my continuing efforts to highlight parts of the 23rd district, i rise to talk about one of the jewels of the 23rd, cast vo -- cast roville, where texas meets france. one of several settlements

1874, by a frenchman in the alsation influence is strong there. census was n 2000 2,000 people. mr. gallego: it's a great place for a walking tour. if you're looking for recreational relaxation there are few places better than cast roville where the medina river me anders through town, the medina river that was once the border between texas and mexico. 106 acres of trees along the medina river as part of the park and lots of shopping. cast roville pottery is one of the coolest pottery shops arn, how to ey'll show you make your own.

the speaker pro tempore: for what purpose does the gentleman seek recognition? >> i ask unanimous consent to revise and extend my remarks. the speaker pro tempore: without objection, the gentleman is recognize. mr. wilson: last tuesday, i hosted a town hall by telephone to hear their expectations of the president's state of the union address. the overwhelming message was clear, we must repeal and replace the government health care takeover bill which destroys jobs. during the call, i spoke with annette who would like to expand her company and hire more employees. unfortunately because of the tax increases imposed by obamacare she feels the government is single handedly prohibiting her from creating new jobs. she's not alone. today, federal employees receive their february pay statements and one did kated employee showed me her premium had doubled, putting her family in crisis. house republicans have an alternative that repeals the unworkable health care law and replaces it with commonsense

solutions that will not deter annette and others trying to create jobs. in conclusion, god bless our troops and we will never forget september 11 and the global war on terrorism. the speaker pro tempore: for what purpose does the gentleman from virginia seek recognition? >> i ask unanimous consent to address the house for one minute and revise and extend my remarks. the speaker pro tempore: without objection, the gentleman is recognized for one minute. >> recently, the u.s. environmental protection agent se announced that it's expanding the boundary lines of wyoming's wind river reservation. this decision by the e.p.a. claiming it had authority under the clean air act overturned earlier congressional actions that reduced the size of the wind river indian reservation and made clear that the neighboring towns were not part of the reservation. a a january 6 press release, governor said my deep concern is

about the agency they have federal government altering a state's boundary and going against 100 years of history and law. this should be a concern to all citizens because if the emplet p.a. can unilaterally take away land from a state, where will it stop? where will it stop, indeed? i believe the e.p.a. thinks it controls anything that touches air or water. they even think they control the boundaries of the indian nations. you can't make this stuff up. i yield back. the speaker pro tempore: are there further requests for one-minute speeches? the chair lays before the house the following personal requests. the clerk: leave of absence requested for mr. crenshaw of florida for today. the speaker pro tempore: without objection, the request is granted. under the speaker's announced policy of january 3rks2013, the gentlewoman from minnesota, mrs.

bachmann is recognized for of minutes as the designee of the majority leader. mrs. bachmann: mr. speaker, i want to thank the speaker for allowing me this one hour to talk on some very important subjects that are facing the nation. we deal with economic issue well, deal with the health care crisis in our country, and americans right now who as they are watching us on this floor this evening wonder if they'll have a job tomorrow. so many americans right now are looking at part-time jobs rather than full-time jobs. this is changing their live and it's changing what they thought the future would hold for them. mr. speaker, i want to assure the american people that it's not over. hold on. we know that better days can be ahead.

why? because economics can change. economic policies can change. and unfortunately, what we have seen coming out of the obama white house, the economic policies have led to americans not having the number of hours that they need to be able to provide for their family, they aven't led to the wage increases they had hoped they would be able to see. as a matter of fact, mr. speaker, very disturbing information has come forward that nearly $4,000 in a reduction of income has occurred on average to american households. this is from the time president obama first came into office in 2008, the average median household income was something more in 2007 ,000 than it is today in 2014. now mr. speaker, i don't know how anyone could see that that's

good news or that that's a good deal because with inflation and inflationary values, we all know, mr. speaker, that people pay more for gasoline today in 2014 than they did back in 2007. we know people pay farmar today for groceries, mr. speaker, in 2014 than they did in 2007. so if the american people -- so what the american people need is relief resm leaf from these inflation pushed high prices on the american people. that's why the report that came out on friday regarding the keystone pipeline was so important. it confirmed what numerous other studies had already told us before, and it's this. the keystone pipeline will not increase carbon emissions here in the united states. it is completely safe. and for the good of the united states of america, for the good

of our environment, for the good of job creation, for the good of wage increases in the united states, we should have built keystone and the pipeline and increased american energy production years ago. we have the chance now. and so mr. speaker, i call on the obama administration to implement what the recent state department report issued on friday and it is this. that we can safely go ahead and build the keystone pipeline. but i think we need to go much further than that, mr. speaker. i think it would behoove not only this house of representatives but also the united states senate and the president of the united states to unify and agree on something that would be so good for all americans, young and old, rich and poor, black and white, latina, all elements of the united states. we should unite on growing our

economy and growing prosperity for the average american and we can do this, mr. speaker, by engaging in an all of the above energy policy whereby we legalize all forms of energy and in fact, encourage exploration and growth because we have reports that are issued every single year that come to the same conclusion year after year after year of all countries in the world, there are well over 100 countries in the world and of all the countries in the world, our own government tells us every year in a report that it's the united states of america that has been singularly blessed, blessed how, mr. speaker? blessed with an abundance of natural energy resources, whether it's oil, united states is blessed with more oil than the -- than sashe. whether it's natural gas. the united states of america is

blessed with trillions of cubic square feet of natural gas. every day, mr. speaker, our scientists and our explorers find more and more of this wonderful natural resource. oil. natural gas. and coal. and because of the genius of scientists in the united states, we have cleaner options than ever before to use fundamental source of energy which is the number one source of energy in the united states and that's coal. in my home state of minnesota, we see that there's a propane crisis that people in my district are severely curtailed from using this energy resource and there's also a scarcity of the product as well. i spoke with one individual today on the plane when i was coming in who told me he was so happy, his mother locked in at about $1.3 a glisten on propane -- $1.30 a gallon on propane,

and there's talk that propane could go up to $6 a gallon or even $7 before the worst winter in decades in our area is over. let's help the american peoples' -- people's lives easier, mr. speaker. not more difficult. we can do that very simply by engaging in an all of the above american energy strategy whereby literally millions of high-paying jobs would come online. and so rather than, when president obama came into office, we've seen an average ,edian household income go down not freeze or stay the same, but actually go down, go down by nearly $4,000 and in fact, the average median income of the average american, they now see that their income is 8% less today than it was seven years

ago. rather than that being our story, let's change the narrative, mr. speaker. let's change it for a positive, happy ending for the american people so that when they go to their local gas station, rather than gas being in excess of $3 a gallon or in some parts of the country other $4 a gallon, let's bring the price down, mr. speaker. so it could be $2 a gallon again. i know that's entirely possible and within our grasp but what would be even better is to see the average american's income, including senior citizens on fixed income, to see their incomes go up. their rate of return on their savings. the rate of return on their dividends, their investments that they've tied up, after a lifetime of labor, after a lifetime of doing the right thing, taking their hard-earned money, putting it into savings,

putting it into an investment, putting it into what for many americans what is their number one investment which is their home, seeing americans' home values rise. why? because of having a go-go economy a growth-based economy, an economy that's growing because rather than being a consumer of energy from foreign nations, we are instead the world's leading supplier of energy resources across the rest of the world. i know this is possible, mr. speaker. and i know that we can unify on this issue. not only fossil fuels, mr. speaker, but also nuclear reactors. just this last week, i spoke with an individual who is an expert in the field of nuclear reactors. you know, before in the united states, we relied on large nuclear reactors. in my home state of minnesota,

mr. speaker, we have two nuclear reactors in our state that supply somewhere between 20% and 25% of all the electricity needs in minnesota. we are grateful that we have these two reactors that provide emission-free power in our state. but we have a new generation of nuclear reactors that could come online and be available for people all across the united states. think in a rural area, where perhaps there's just a few thousand people who perhaps wouldn't have access to nuclear generated energy, could have access to new, small, nuclear modules that are effectively able to be put in very unique locations. completely safe. almost -- almost waste-free. this new generation of nuclear

reactors, in my opinion, should be studied and put online in the near future so that we could have yet one more tool in america's energy tool kit, and as a matter of fact, the united states could be again, the leading supplier of this newest generation of modular nuclear reactors to be used and deployed across the world where they are safe, where they can't be compromised, and where very, very little nuclear waste comes forward. you see it's exciting, mr. speaker, to look at the future. where so many of my constituents that i speak to today are worried and nervous about the future. they literally tell me, congresswoman, i have no idea if my children will be as well off in their future as i am today. every generation of americans have been hopeful and

optimistic, mr. speaker, because they've assumed and taken for granted that their children would be better off economically than they are today. that's all of our hopes. . i know i feel that for my biological children. that's my hope and prayer for my foster children. we want every generation to not only had what we had but exceed it and shoot for the stars with their ambition and their goals and their dreams and their plans. isn't that america? isn't that what defines us? to build the next generation, of the next mousetrap, to benefit not only us, not only our children, but to benefit and lift up those among us in the united states who seek to move up the next economic ladder. you see, that's what can happen with innovation. pull out a smartphone, if you have a smartphone. and you think of what was available to only the wealthiest among us.

you now see in the hands of people at the bottom level of the economic ladder. and yet how much improved are our lives because we have smartphones today that are available to us? think of the application, that the -- the apps, if you will, that are on smartphones and how those apps can be used to increase productivity in the united states. can be used, for instance, on health care, to connect us more quickly with a doctor or nurse or a pharmacy, so we can realize the requirements that we need to become healthier individuals. there's so many great innovations that are just waiting around the corner. if we only legalize them and if we only open them up and if we reject this very kwleve hand of government that want -- heavy hand of government that wants aspects of ferent our lives to be far more

expensive, have less of an ability to access the newest innovations. instead we in the united states need to be what we were for the first several hundred years of our existence. and it's this. nimble. nimble and able to capitalize on the intellect, the raw ideas, the talent that are in the united states, legal immigration has benefited this country immeasurably and we embrace with both arms legal immigration and all that has meant for our country. these are just a few of the things that we have to be hopeful about and optimistic about as we go forward in our country. but there's other issues as well besides economics that we are grappling with here in the united states. one of those deals with foreign policy. another deals with national security. another deals with how the united states is viewed across

the world. i've spent time with my colleagues, many of whom this last week were across the world, trying to meet with world leaders and find out what he concerns are, how we in the united states can advance our mutual interests. i was privileged to be able to go on a fact-finding trip recently with one of my democrat colleagues, wonderful man from rhode island, representative jim langevin. jim is a quadpliegic and he and i had the privilege of traveling both to australia and to new england where we met with our counterparts and also where we could talk about mutual areas where we could work together. we see the rise in asia of a new and aggressive china, a china who for all practical purposes has been engaging in what some would call cyberespionage and cyberwarfare. against nations all across the

world. not just the united states. but against many nations. how can we cooperate then with our allies to counter very aggressive steps that could be taken by, for instance, the chinese, or perhaps the russians, or perhaps the iranians, or other nations, north korea, for instance, who may not have the united states' best interests at heart? who may in fact, through the use of the internet, through cyberespionage or through hacking in government computers, could be in essence stealing some of the united states' most sensitive secrets, secrets that we would not our adversaries to have. this is a very real issue, mr. speaker, and one that needs to be addressed. that isn't the only form of warfare. there's also economic warfare. where our private businesses, through their own expenditure

of funds, on research and development, have come up with innovative new products, have in effect had the plans and the designs and the processes for those products literally stolen by adversaries, again, not with our best interests at heart, here in the united states, that information has been taken and in some cases, we are told, a country like china has built a factory in china or in some other location where all they had to do was steal the raw data from an american company and they could go to work once they had that intellectual property and put to work perhaps a new line of paint, perhaps a new product that was being made in the united states and now is being made more cheaply in china and is undercutting the patents and the protections and the intellectual property that we have in the united states. you see, mr. speaker, it's a

brave new world that we live in. and that's why national security matters. and it's why foreign policy matters. and it's why this last wednesday at the munich conference it was very -- weekend at the munich conference it was very important that we in the united states listened to and -- listen to and pay attention to what it is we're hearing from our foreign partners in the world. we have to recognize the reality of our world. not everyone has america's best interests at heart. not all foreign powers want to make sure that it's america's children who will grow up to be the economic and military powerhouse leaders of the world. you see, many foreign nations would like to see the united states cut down, reduced down, so that we are no longer an economic leader or a military leader. i believe that the united states has been a strong

partner of keeping peace across the world for decades. we're not a perfect country. we haven't done everything right. we get that. we recognize that. but i believe that our world has been better off when the united states has been that economic leader and that military leader. if the united states isn't the leader in the world, who should it be? what would peace be like in the world if putin and the russian government was the leader, holding together world powers? just imagine for a moment what that would be like. or imagine, mr. speaker, what would it be like if china was the leader, holding together world powers? we know what they've done before. by stealing secrets from our government. stealing secrets from private industry. we know what that has done.

what would that be if china was the leading military or economic superpower? we can't think that this is some far-off future scenario that could never happen. we need to open our eyes and i think one place that we can open our eyes is listening to what foreign leaders are telling us. and what some of my colleagues have told me even as recently as today from some of their travels, foreign travels across the world. is that they've never heard before foreign leaders say to them what they are saying now. and foreign leaders are saying, look, we don't get the united states anymore. we don't understand your foreign policy. we don't understand your national security. because we don't understand who the friends are of the united states anymore. we don't understand who your aide adversaries are anymore -- who your adversaries are anymore. in fact, we can receive

communications from the state department or the defense department or an intelligence department and we can get through different pictures of the same scenario. which one should we believe? there's a problem and we didn't hear this just once, we've heard this from multiple regions in the world and from multiple world leaders who are scratching their heads, even including former polish president who had said the united states is no longer the political and moral power in the world. and you see, mr. speaker, other nations across the world want the united states, a responsible holder of power, to maintain that sense of decency and rule of law and adherence to a common goal of mankind. to prefer peace over war. sometimes the united states has had to go to war.

we've had to go to war in order to stand face-to-face and toe-to-toe with some of the most maniacal dictators that have ever been known in human history. that would include a stalin, that -- of russia, that would and that o of china would include hitler of germany. these rulers have served to hurt the chances for peace in the world and yet it's the united states that has chosen to put on the line treasure and blood time after time after time. and once war has ensued, no one wants war, no one prefers war, but once that has ensued, it's the united states that did in fact rebuild europe and feed millions who were starving. and it was the united states after world war ii, after the

dropping of the bombs in japan, that went in and helped to rebuild that war-torn country. and the difficulty that it ensued. these aren't easy issues. there is no clean line here of right and wrong. there are difficulties that we grapple with. we get that. but, mr. speaker, one thing that we should agree is that the policies of the united states shouldn't hurt the american people and they shouldn't hurt people in other countries. our policies should be ones that help the american people. and help to bring about peace with other nations of the world. that should be easy. and that's why this last weekend at the munich conference i was particularly concerned with our secretary of state's comments. and there was an article that had come out just this weekend regarding our secretary of state and i wanted to quote

from it. i wanted to be able to speak a little bit also about some other issues that have been in the news, the american people continue to ask me about benghazi, when are we ever going to get the truth about benghazi? just over a week ago there was an article by the second in command in benghazi who wanted to straighten out the facts and put his view on paper. it's all very interesting. we want to be able to have time to talk about that. but i think it's also very important that we talk about and listen to america's greatest ally in the world. and there's an ally that felt very disrespected, and even used the word offended, after comments that were made at the munich conference this week by our secretary of state. in deference to our secretary of state, follow-up responses have been that he didn't mean to say what was reported in the media. but i think it's very important that we look at our ally, and this is israel, and what

israel's response is. and, again, i think, mr. speaker, we need to look at the context of the remarks that were made by our secretary of state. because, you see, if you speak with the prime minister of israel, benjamin netanyahu, as i have done numerous times in the last few months, and if you speak to the foreign minister of israel, as i have been privileged to do, the defense secretary in israel, as i've been privileged to do, to the intelligence secretary in israel, as i have been privileged to do, they have been very strong and united in their view of the greatest threat that israel faces today. and that threat isn't new, it is one that israel has faced for the last recent years, and it's this -- it is iran with a nuclear weapon. because iran has stated unequivocally, once they gain

access to a nuclear weapon, and potentially the missile means to deliver that weapon, they have announced they will use that weapon against israel, again, israel being about the size of new jersey, the largest city, tel aviv, and the surrounding area provides employment to approximately 80% of the israeli population. so it doesn't take a lot of imagination, mr. speaker, to see that it may be the game plan of a nuclear weaponized ran to drop a nuclear weapon on tel aviv and effectively wipe out the jewish state of israel in one fell swoop. if that would happen, mr. speaker, we should not kill ourselves. that capability and capacity would, i believe, just as easily

be used against our western partners and allies in the european region, could be used against australia, our great ally and friend, and also against new zealand, our great ally and friend. god forbid, mr. speaker, it could be used here in the united states of america. the rhetoric that's come out of iran is nothing less than outrageous but intentional. intentional that the regime has stated, they haven't deviated one iota from their nuclear goalings and ambitions. not one iota. what would that mean for the world if iran obtained a nuclear weapon? you see this is a very dangerous, dangerous game that we are playing with iran. i absolutely disagree, fundamentally work the president's decision under p5

plus one agreement, to allow an to continue to spin centrifuges and continue to enrich uranium which could be used as a fuel for a nuclear weapon. iran has not complied with the u.n. resolution. not at all. they have not. what's different today under the p5 plus one? not much, i would submit system of you see, mr. speaker, the worst nightmare for israel has been realized in that exactly when iran was being squeezed with economic sanctions, when they were in a position where they were starting to yell ouch! that's exactly when the united states and the p5 plus one pulled back the pressure and allows iran to have some

breathing space. breathing space to the tune of billions of dollars of access to grow and prop up iran's failing economy. this is not the time to give balance to iran. this was the time to demand cooperation from iran. and so what is happening now is that we see people from all over the world, china, russia, various nations, they're all buying plane tickets to run to tehran to conduct economic deals because you see, under the previous sanctions regime, nations were prevented from constructing economic deals because it would help build up iran. now it is an open court press to engage with economic commerce with iran. that's building up iran. it is causing iran to have less

incentive to come to the table and stop their programs of enriching uranium, of spinning centrifuges, and they are not in any way dismantling their current nuclear program. as prime minister netanyahu said, it's his worst day in 10 years. he said this is the deal of a century in iran. why is it we would fail to listen to our number one ally in the world, israel, on this topic of a nuclear weaponized iran? why wouldn't we listen to them? why wouldn't we listen to their concerns? why israel which is far more vulnerable to iran with a nuclear weapon, wouldn't we take those concerns into account. well, i think that it's revealing what happened this last weekend at the munich conference because you see, mr. speaker, one government minister

in israel called secretary of state kerry's statements offensive. at the conference, secretary said and i quote from the article that was pub mished -- published this weekend, this is secretary of state kerry speaking now, you see, for israel, there's an increase -- increasing delegitmyization campaign that's been building up. in other words, there's an effort to dely jitmies israel. people are very sensitive to it. there are talks of boycotts and other keends of things. are we all going to be better off with all of that? the intelligence minister in israel, yesterday morning, said, israel cannot be pressured to negotiate with a gun against its head. in other words, economic boycotts from european union, om sanctions and also from

divestment campaigns. let's think about this for a moment. boycott. boycotting israel's products. approximately 30%, i'm told, of economic trade that israel engages with comes from europe. if there is a boycott that comes from the e.u., this will severely handicap israel's economy. and yet it seems that secretary of state kerry was threatening israel with an economic boycott. what about sanctions? sanctions? isn't it the mother of all ironies that sanctions by agreement of the united states have been lifted from what arguably is the united states' greatest adversary, a nuclear weaponized iran and also israel's greatest adversary, a nuclear weaponized iran? we would lift sanctions, ironically, against a rogue

regime with announced intentions to annihilate peoples across the world, the jewish state of israel, the united states of america, the jewish state of israel being the little state and the united states of america being denominated the great satan. so we would lift sanctions on a nuclear al nation, iran, and yet we would threaten sanctions or the possibility of sanctions from the e.u. against america's greatest ally, israel? isn't that one of those most severe ironies of all time? this being the greatest exiss ten rble threat to the world, iran with a nuclear weapon, how could it be that our secretary of state would bring this up to the world at the munich conference just last weekend, the specter of a boycott against

israel, saxes against israel, as a potential of a divestment campaign analogous to south africa which actually engaged in apartheid. d yet in israel, what is the so-called apartheid? when the palestinians can work in the state of israel, palestinians are allowed to live in the jewish state of israel. there is an effort of co-existence from the jewish state of israel. and what as the palestinian authority done? they have thumbed their nose at the oslo accords. they have thumbed their nose. have they fulfilled the oslo accords, the requirement os then palestinians? no they have not. what did israel do? israel took land in the gaza area which is on the

mediterranean sea, they withdrew israeli settlers from gaza and gave the land over to the palestinian authority. in exchange for peace. what sort of peace did israel realize by actually giving up that land to the palestinian authority? they were met with raucous -- rockets fired in the region near eersheba and sterot. those areas continue to have thousands of rockets pointed out -- pointed at them. who, i ask, mr. mr. speaker -- i ask, mr. speaker, is the aggressor in this situation? who, i ask, mr. speaker, should be the one to receive economic boycotts or sanctions or di vestments? would it be israel, which is not being the aggressor with rockets against gaza? or should it be gaza? you see these rockets are hidden

in neighborhoods. they're hidden in nursing homes. by the palestinians. they are hidden in areas where civilians are kept. these rockets are not fired at military targets, mr. speaker, by the palestinians. they're specifically target at elementary schools at nursing homes in israel and at innocent human life. think of this. as our secretary of state this weekend, threatened israel with boycotts, economic sanctions, and di vestment. no wonder the israelis were so extremely upset with our secretary of state. who ihe economic minister had the privilege of meeting on one of my recent trips had a

message for all the advice givers, this is what he said, and i quote, never has a nation abandoned their land because of economic threats. we are no different. in other words, be warned. israel will not give up further land. no matter what the threats are. and the united states, which purports to be israel's best friend, should not be the one rattling the saber with economic threats. he went on to say, only security will ensure economic stability. not a terrorist state next to our airport. we expect our friends around the world to stand beside us and against anti-semitic boycott efforts targeting israel and not to be their amplifier. that's how those words were received in this very volatile part of the world. even this prime minister, benjamin netanyahu, weighted in

on the secretary's boycott threats. according to a transcript of the prime minister's remarks on the prime minister's website, he called any attempt to boycott israel immoral and unjust. they will not achieve their goal, the prime minister said. first they caused the palestinians to adhere to their intransigent position and thus pushed peace further away. you see these are not big asks for reasonable people to consider. you see, the palestinian authority is being asked to recognize the right to exist for the jewish state of israel. the right to exist. they don't even want to accept that the jewish state of israel has the right to exist. that's number one. number two, does the jew herb state of israel have the right to defend herself from aggression? they won't even admit she has the right to defend herself from

aggression. maybe it would help if hamas, which is the ruling authority over gaza, maybe it would help if they remove article 7 from their charter which calls for the anilings of the jewish people. the ex-termination of the jewish people. -- the ex-termination of the jewish people. there isn't much call between the call in the hamas charter which is the final solution, the ridance of the jewish people in the jewish state of israel, there isn't much difference between that and what a maniacal leader tried to accomplish during world war ii and yet these same terrorists are being given deference in the palestinian-israeli negotiations. it is bizarre to think that the united states and the policy of

the united states since 2008, has included calling on israel to retreat and give up even more land to the palestinian which is have repeatedly called for the anilings of the jewish state. it's amazing that the united states and our president have called on israel to withdraw to the pre1967 borders. which would be a suicide mission. you see, mr. speaker, i have been to israel. i have literally stood in an apartment building where i could look out the front window of the apartment and see the mediterranean sea and the border of israeled on the west and look out the window in the rear of the apartment and see israel's order on the east. about a nine-mile width. what country could defend

itself, especially when the call is that the palestinian authority seeks to unite both the area of judea, sumeria, with gaza and they want a highway to do that. in other words, israel is being called upon to cut herself in two. if she cuts herself in two, just like any human body she couldn't go on. she couldn't survive. she couldn't live. and so these these requests and demands coming from the palestinian authority should be shut down by the united states of america. that's where the deal should come, mr. speaker. not delegitimizing israel, because she has a goal of the existence of the jewish state.

shouldn't israel have that right to continue and preserve itself as a jewish state of israel? isn't that a worthy goal? shouldn't we agree with that? why should we be undercutting that goal when the so-called partner in peace, the palestinian authority, is unwilling to even work with step one? i understand the response from leaders in israel this weekend. i understand it, because in effect what they're saying is, they no longer recognize the united states of america as its friend. and isn't it interesting, mr. speaker, that parallels what many members of congress have been hearing from various leaders across the world. we no longer recognize the united states of america. we no longer recognize your foreign policy. and behind closed doors, they

are telling us they want us to succeed. they want us to remain the world's superpower because we provide literally defense across the world to keep world order. and if we're not here as a force for good, then what, then who, then what is the next step? so you see, these are not comments made by our ally israel. those leaders without cause and without reason. the prime minister said they will not achieve their goal, meaning the boycott, the sanctions and difficult investment. they caused the palestinian to adhere to their positions and pushed peace further away, that's true. no pressure will concede me to concede the vital interest of the state of israel especially the security of israel's citizens. make no mistake about it. israel won't give up. israel is going to stand.

israel will stand. put st nation to roadblocks in israel's way is united states of america. senator kerry has three decades support of israel's security. that is the statement that was released. the secretary's words don't add up. at the conference, kerry said of israel-palestinian conflict, today's stat tuesday ", i promise you 100% cannot be maintained. if not sustainable. there is a momentary prosperity. there is a momentary peace. in other words, secretary kerry is putting pressure on israel to make a change. d to make a change whereby putting her sovereignty on the line. and the question is, will the united states continue to press

israel to withdraw from judea. the biblical homeland of the jewish state of israel. now i ask you, mr. speaker, why in the world would the united states ask israel to withdraw from the very location where ,ccording to biblical documents the jewish state of israel was begun. where abraham, the originator of the jewish state of israel, where the jewish people have their origin, why would they be that area that is the area that we expect would be given back to the palestinian authority, when there has been virtually continuous presence of the jewish people in that region, albeit to varying degrees.

i had the privilege of standing at shiloh, where the meeting was moved, in the interim period before the first temple period on the temple mount in jerusalem. he temple was in a tent at shiloh and there are chards of potry that prove that this location in jewa is where the jewish -- judea is where the jewish people had their holy site, where worship was conducted for over 350 years by the jewish people. yet the jewish people are told they have to leave that land, the land of their origin, the land of worship where over 3,500

years, they have to leave? incredulous, impossible. it will never be. and one thing that needs to be understood, mr. speaker, is the tenacity and determination and decision of the jewish people. you see, mr. speaker, they have given up before. they have given land for peace. they have given one concession after another, but what they ve told me in my visits to judea, no more. the people who live there are not temporary settlers, they are residents. this is their home. and they have no intention of leaving and will fight to the death for their land and for their people and for their ancestors, and yes, for their children and for the future of the jewish state of israel. you see, the prime minister, benjamin netanyahu stood in this

chamber right behind me, and stood, mr. speaker, and he told a joint session of congress very clearly that israel isn't what's wrong with the middle east, israel is what's right for the middle east. i know from experience the very first time i was privileged to travel to the jewish state of israel was the day after i graduated from high school. it was in 1974. i spent my summer in israel, very different place back then. it was a third world country. the modern state of israel was established in 1948 under extremely severe adverse conditions, and they continued to fight for the maintenance of their sovereignty. why? because they were continually attacked by their arab neighbors . it remains so to do this day. there is only one jewish state in the world.

there are multiple arab nations, multiple muslim nations across the world, as it should be. we recognize the right to exist of muslim nations. we recognize iran's right to exist. why is it that only the jewish state of israel has to struggle for the world to recognize its right to exist? and why is it the only nation in the world has to struggle to have recognition of its designated capital, jerusalem. jerusalem is the eternal jewish city of the state of israel. and that is the bone of contention for the world, jerusalem. even so much so that the united states, which is supposed to be

israel's ally and we are supposed to have israel's back, our embassy remains in tel aviv, rather than in jerusalem. there are efforts to have our embassy moved, and i call upon our government, mr. speaker. i call upon our president to demonstrate to israel that we do have your back. we are your greatest ally and have the united states move our embassy into jerusalem and do it in a frltnight and show the world that we do have their back. and if we can't do that, mr. speaker, i will call on our administration to, at minimum, change the state department's web site, which if you look at the map of israel, and if you look at the capital, jerusalem, jerusalem is not designated israel. it's considered an international

up-for-grabs area. really? jerusalem is contiguously surrounded by the jewish state of israel. w could this not be the very navel of the jewish state of israel. see, if the united states makes a decision to abandon israel, as many nations of the world have done and many nations are crying out for economic boycott against israel, economic difficult investment against israel as though israel were a criminal, if the united states, mr. speaker, chooses to join that extremely misguided, ong-headed void of all facts thinking, then i make a prediction, mr. speaker, that the united states will be adversely affected economically, and i believe we could see

adversity militarily against the united states as well. there's always been one great defender of the jewish state and of the jewish people. d that defender has been lifted throughout. and israel has had her back held than a stronger force than the united states. that defender will remain. but the question is, what will be the destiny of the united states? will our destiny be one of blessing or will it be one of adversity? we need to be very clear and very careful with how we deal with the jewish state of israel. israel must never be betrayed and the united states must not put pressure on the jewish state of israel. mr. speaker, i would like to go over just a brief timeline that i put together of jewish and

israeli concessions and foreign demands that have been put on the jewish state of israel. balfourto 1917 with the declaration and 1920, arab attacks on jewish peaceful settlements in the northern part of the british-controlled part of palestine. the british military administration urged the disbanding of the zionist commission and giving affect to declaration promising a home in palestine. the administration was replaced by a league of nations' mandate. it was israel that was betrayed. 1921, anti-jewish riots occurred by the , orchestrated head of the muslim community.

they took the lives of 43 jews in that effort in 1921. the british temporarily suspended jewish immigration into israel. in 1922, britain removed all of palestine east of the jordan, 78% of palestine was removed from the territory of the league of nation' mandate for palestine and transferred power to abdullah who established emirates later called transjordan. in 1929, a campaign of false mor and propoganda alleged that jews demonstrated that the western wall cursed muhammad. never happened. and that others would soon be attacked. a massive anti-jewish program convlused palestine in which 133 jews were murdered by arab mobs. the british suppressed the assault and killed 110

palestinian arabs. and recommended reducing jewish immigration and blamed the jews for the murderous violence. in 1939, a commission that investigated the arab revolt recommended creating a jewish state in 20% of the jewish mandate and to be placed under arab control and incorporated into the transjordan. the arab world rejected that. in other words, a palestinian homeland rejected it and the arab revolt continued. 1939, the st. james conference was attended by design nist and palestinian leadership, -- zionist and palestinian leadership. no solution was reached. a paper was written for further jewish immigration would have to be dependent upon arab approval. 1947, the united nations proposed partitioning the

british mandate. the plan was accepted by the zionist movement and rejected by all arab parties. and again, 6,000 jews, 1% of the israeli population, were killed in a war in may of 1948 when israel declared herself the jewish state. that was her entre into statehood and sovereignty and israel has fought ever since and been under attack by her neighbors. 1949, arab belligerence other han 1949, all refused to recognize israel, refused to negotiate a solution to the palestinian-ashe efugee problem, cawed by the war started by the palestinian state.

most refugees were confined to refugee camps, 50,000 remain alive today. only 50,000. the of the-heard figure of four million or five million palestinian refugees, encludes, contrary to any other refugee case in the world, not the actual refugees but generations of their offspring. today, we have refugees from the syrian conflict. only the current refugees are included, not multiple generations. this is not true with the palestinians. the u.n. called on resolution 19 4, calling for returning refugees between the context of an ashe peace and all ashes opposed that resolution. on and on we go, mr. speaker, to the present time. including the most recent demand by secretary of stater isry -- kerry against the israelis that the israelis had to release over

0 terrorists, many of whom were murders, who had killed innocent israelis including an american citizen. the united states government put pressure on the israeli government to release known murderers, terrorists, and thugs in exchange for what? in exchange for other prisoners, israeli prisoners to be returned to israel? no, mr. speaker. in return for the palestinians to sit down at the negotiating table. and they did. once again, israel disadvantaged herself and released murderous terrorists in order to get the palestinian authority to just come to the table. and what's been the goal of the palestinian authority? the lay, wait, change the terms,

move the goal post. never getting to a point of actually coming to agreement. we have the incident in 1947 and 1950, jews in ashe lands being told they had to flee violence and persecution or in 1956 when israel captured the sinai and then later returned it to egypt. in 195 -- many -- in 1957, israel withdrew if the sinai. in 1957, egyptian demands were met that's when israel returned the left hand to egypt. in 197234erk yom kippur war, e-- 1973, the yom kippur war. a cease fire came about. 1979, egypt and israel signed a peace treaty with egypt and israel dismantled 5,000 communities. 1993, the oslo accords, to this

day, they have not been met by the palestinian partners. 1994, israel and the p.l.o. sign the gaza-jericho agreement. again the palestinian authority repudiated that agreement. repudiated. 1997, the hebron agreement, again, there was no peace an it was undercut. 998, the y river memorandum. 2000, 2001, camp david negotiations again israel came in good faith, again, undercut. 2003, the road map to peace did not call for terrorism-free palestinian leadership and terrorists remain in that leadership today. 005, as i said earlier, israel withdrew unilaterally from gaza and northern sumeria. ,000 rockets attacked in that

time. 2008, israel made another offer to the p.a. that covered 94% of the westback. again it wasn't enough, the perform a. wouldn't accept the offer and made no caunt offer. the p.a. is un-- no counter offer. the p.a. is unwilling to say yes. that's why this last weekend was so important, mr. speaker. and why the sec -- why secretary of state's -- state kerry's words fell on incredulous ears and despite the nuclear agreement with iran and now with the words said this last weekend, we need to make it unmistakable -- the speaker pro tempore: the gentlelady's time has expired. mrs. bachmann k i stand with israel as -- mrs. bachmann: i stand with israel as do my colleagues on both sides of the aisle. the speaker pro tempore: under rule, aker's announced the gentlelady, ms. beatty, is

recognized for 0 minutes as the leader. of the minority mrs. beatty: i'm honored to with my co-guest anchor robin ue the gentlewoman kelly. we realize the important when women succeed, america succeeds, has on our agenda. i would also like to thank my colleagues, congressman horsford and congressman jeffries for their assistance in organizing this evening's special order hour. too many women across america are being left behind in today's economy. as the president so passionate lay hi stated in his house floor speech of the state of the union on tuesday, today, women make up about half of our work force but they still make 77 cents for

every dollar a man earns. this is wrong. and in 2014, it is an embarrassment. it is important for me to note, for black women, the pay gap is even larger. black women on the average earn only 64 cents to every $1 a man earns. the president implored congress, the white house the businesses from wall street to main street to come together and give every woman the opportunity she deserves because, i quote, when women succeed, america succeeds. well, mr. president, i couldn't agree more. and i thank you for adding this statement, this call to action, to your state of the union. many democrattings invited women from across -- many democrats

invited women from across america to attend the state of the union address or to watch it. women who are among long-term unemployed women, who are making a difference in their community. like in my community, a lady by the name of amelia cozwell from the west side, working as a home health aide or to my guest karen morrison working as an executive in health care. both must balance the work life and both understand that we must continue to mentor and provide resources to support women. resources such as health care, child care, equal pay, affordable college tuition, early childhood education, economic development opportunities, and more advocates. why? because when women succeed, america succeeds.

we know that women have made and continue to make great strides, but there is more work to be done. we must provide women with economic security and opportunities that they deserve, that their families need. i want to thank the congressional black caucus chairwoman marcia fudge for her leadership in making this a front burner issue for the congressional black caucus tonight. just think about it. jeanette rankin, the first woman elected to congress in 1917, who stood before this body and said, i may be the first woman to be here, but i won't be the last. and she was right. congresswoman shirley chisholm, the first black woman to serve in this body, an the first in our nation as a female to run for president of the united

states. and leader pelosi, the highest ranking female elected to serve in american history. and the first female to serve as house speaker. america is a much better place because of their service. but there are still far too many women who are left behind. we can help rectify that by making sure that we advocate for women's rights, to have the right to vote, to have pay equity, paid leave, and access to quality child care. this evening, we will have the opportunity to hear many firsthand stories about women and the challenges that they face and how we can help overcome them. let me start by introducing my co-guest anchor, robin kelly, from the second district of illinois. robin is no stranger to the challenges that women face in

the work force. as a former state legislator and -- legislator, an administrator, a scholar, and now a congressional advocate for women, i proudly present the gentlelady from illinois and yield to her. ms. kelly: thank you, congresswoman beatty, thank you, mr. speaker. i want to thank all my colleagues in the congressional black caucus who have joined us here tonight and continue to fight and serve as the conscience of our congress. when women succeed, america succeeds. it's a simple enough concept yet it hasn't received the attention it deserves in the policy arena. as we reflect on moments like the fifth anniversary of the lilly ledbetter fair pay act a bill that most of us would agree was long overdue, it's important that we keep in our minds and hearts the critical lesson of that important legislation. that it's unacceptable for paid discrimination to exist in our

work force. that workers who face discrimination have a right to claim compensation for the injustices they face. that regardless of gender, race, religion, or sexual identity, we all have rights to be justly compensated for our work. and most important, that it's beneficial to our economy, our family, and our children to pay fair wages to all of america's workers. and in that spirit, we must lift up the cause of an economic agenda for women and their families. as we look to grow our economy, let us keep in mind how women drive that growth. women are the breadwinners and co-breadwinners in nearly 2/3 of america's families. women now outnumber men at every level of the higher education ladder. in 1964, only about 40% of women were enrolled in any type of college. today, that figure is 57%.

there are roughly three million more women currently enrolled in college than men. women-owned businesses like linko, ed by vickie christy hefner in illinois account for nearly $3 trillion of the gross domestic product in the united states. women are vital to our economic future. still, the facts on how we need to go for women to truly achieve the american dream are staggering. one in three adult women are living in poverty or on the brink of it. one quarter of single mothers spend more than half of their incomes on housing, compared to one tenth of single fathers. of all single mothers, nearly 2/3 are working in low wage retail service or administrative jobs that offer little economic support or adequately provide for the needs of their families. women make only 77 cents for

every dollar a man makes. a pay gap that exists even the first year out of college and continues through a woman's life. if you're a woman of color, no matter what your education is, there is that gap and the gap grows as your education increases. and wage disparities cost american women an estimated $400,000 to $2 million in lost wages over a lifetime. i now yield back to the gentlewoman from ohio, congress woman beatty. mrs. beatty: thank you, congresswoman kelly, for providing us with the necessary statistics so we have a better understanding of when we move forward, how we need to deal with making a difference in the lives of those women. now i have the great honor to yield to the gentlelady from ohio, from ohio's 11th congressional district, she is the chairwoman of the congressional black caucus, the

leader, a lawyer, and an advocate for the people. she leads the largest delegation of the congressional black caucus in its history. we stand 43 strong, following her leadership. please join me as i yield to congresswoman, chairwoman of the congressional black caucus, congresswoman marcia fudge. ms. fudge: thank you so very much and thank you for queeleding. . we talk about woman, we are anchored by congresswoman beatty from the great state of ohio and congresswoman kelly from illinois. i have had a wonderful opportunity to meet these outstanding women and i'm so pleased they are here this evening and thank them again for leading this special order hour for the congressional black caucus. today, members of the c.b.c.

raised our collective voices to advocate for a stronger economy by supporting and investing in working women across america. my colleagues and i know improving the economic condition of families and communities across the country begins with strengthening the economic position of women, because when women succeed, america succeeds. last week, we marked the fifth anniversary of the littlely ledbetter fair pay act, the first piece of legislation signed by president obama. as a result of this important legislation, women can more effectively take legal action against employers for gender-based pay zrep answeres. d while the act provides a pathway for women, it does not address how we will invest in the economic future of working women in the united states. today, women comprise almost

half of the american work force. the country has come a long way in promoting equal rights and equal pay for women, but it is unacceptable that in 2014, women still make 77 cents on the dollar compared to their male counterparts. in my home state of ohio, women make approximately $10,000 less than men each year. and in my district, the median wage for women is 86% of the median wage for men. according to the 2010 census, in 40% of the american households ith women, they are the sole providers. and most are living in poverty. african-american and latino women feel the zrep answer si more acutely receiving 64 cents and 55 cents on the dollar

respectively when compared to non-white hispanic males. this inequality must not continue. the economic security depends on women's access to fair pay. this nation cannot afford to continue treating women unfairly or leave women behind if they are expected to strengthen and grow our economy. we can start to address this by increasing the minimum wage. almost 2/3 of workers earning the minimum wage are women. the minimum wage has not been sufficiently adjusted to reflect inflation and increasing the minimum wage will lift millions of women and children across the country out of poverty. it is also necessary to establish policies that enable working mothers to earn a living wage and to take care of their families. this requires workplace protections for pregnant workers, paid family sick leave for emergencies and affordable

child care. we cannot sit idle as half of the population of our nation lags behind. i look forward to voting in support of measures that break down economic barriers from reventing women from achieving their potential. mrs. beatty: she is no stranger to advocating for women, for lifting women out of poverty and standing for women. earlier today, congresswoman fudge had the opportunity to speak to speak to thousands of women who are gathered here this week to advocate for the same agenda ave -- agenda, the sore yort where she served as the president. she spoke to them because they joined us in understanding that when women succeed, america

succeeds. now i would like to yield to the gentlelady from california, from california's 3rd congressional district, a woman who has a long history of standing up for people, a woman who understands when you talk about the statistics that we have heard tonight, and we will continue to hear tonight about women living in poverty, a woman who only a few weeks ago, as we celebrated the 50th anniversary of president johnson's war on poverty led us in a press conference with his daughter, standing with her were members of the congressional black caucus. i call her a champion of the people. i call her our warrior of the people. join me as i yield to the gentlelady from california, the honorable barbara lee. ms. lee: let me first thank you,

congresswoman beatty for those humbling remarks and for your tremendous leadership and the work you do each and every day not only for the people in your district but the women, children and families in the entire country. you have certainly hit the ground running here in washington, d.c. but i think you have because of your life's work in ohio and what you have done in ohio as an elected official and how you have just charted the course on so many issues for so many women. thank you again. and thank you for leading us tonight and also to congresswoman kelly. i want to thank her for organizing this special order and for being such a champion for women and children and also for your district in illinois. and again, as two members, i have been here now for probably eight terms and you all have just arrived and i want to thank you. it's an honor to work with you.

thank you. you know, congresswoman beatty, you earlier mentioned the president's quote and i want to mention it once again what he said during the state of the union because it's important to make sure that the country continues to hear that the president, the president understands that when women suck america ucceeds, succeeds. they make 77 cents for every dollar a man earns. that is wrong. in 2014, that is an embarrassment. and thank you for reiterating the president's quote, because we can't forget that he truly is supportive of our overall agenda. simply unacceptable that women are still being paid 77 cents for every dollar that a man makes. african-american and latina women are being paid less while doing the same work as men.

and that's why our democratic women of the house, our leader, congresswoman nancy pelosi, donna edwards, they have launched along with all of us, when women succeeds, america succeeds. and in drawing attention for a need of a true economic agenda for women and families in d.c., we have been hosting a series of events in our districts across the country and we are hearing the same thing. the congresswomen, we are all hearing the same thing. now saturday, i was thrilled and honored to have been joined by leader pelosi at my event in oakland and former congresswoman ynn woolsey who told her story needing affordable child care, a good-paying job as a bridge over her troubled waters and also at this event, i was joined by two

of my constituents, who shared their struggles trying to take care of their families. one told us about her struggles as a single parent. when budget cuts caused her to lose the subsidy she received to pay for child care, she was forced to pull her son out of pre-school and resign from her job to care for him during the day. he started kindergarten unprepared and had -- and is now in his second year catching up. and it is very difficult. she is an unbelievable mother. so he is going to make it and he is going to be a true leader because of his mother who is working each and every day to make sure he catches up. this didn't need to happen if he had affordable child care. when i was in college with my two sons, and i say they were

the two best educated children under three years of age, because i had to take them to class with me while a student at mill college because i could not afford child care. child care is so critical to the success of women when women ucceeds, america succeeds. irma, low-wage worker, she shared her experience with pregnancy discrimination. irma, like so many women, she became pregnant and her manager reduced her work hours from 40 hours a week to less than 30 hours a week and assigned her difficult tasks. you know why they did that? to try to get her to resign. they had her doing work that she would never be allowed to do if her doctor knew they had been requiring her to do that.

after a difficult task, when she was eight months pregnant, mind you -- i have to say, you know what her manager told her, she -- he said, well, if it's so hard, then why go to work? so irma's story is a story of so many of our constituents. t also reminded me of my colleagues have mentioned, the first african-american women elected to congress, she was fighting when she was here in congress for domestic women and fighting for affordable child care and for education. now congresswoman chissom was a founding member of the congressional black caucus and she was someone we looked up to. her passion for the fight of the working poor and for women was undeniable. leader pelosi and myself, we

unveiled the black history stamp on saturday during our panel discussion and it was just really an amazing moment because people in that room, 500 of my constituents, young people, middle-aged, my 89-year-old mother, my two sisters, people really understood when women succeed, women succeeds and the ght that shirley chisolm launched. congresswoman clarke, you all have had the privilege to unveil the stamp in brooklyn. once again, the message of congresswoman shirley chisholm, the message is so relevant and current. the principles of our agenda resonates throughout our country, raising the minimum

wage. and i have to reference low-wage workers. the majority are low-wage workers are women. affordable child care, paid family medical leave and reminded and i mentioned my mother, phenomenal women who raised three young girls and family medical care for our children and our elders, our senior citizens. that is so important that people know they can care for their family members during nare golden years as well as their children. pay equity, closing the gap in terms of the statistics we cited earlier, all of these efforts that we are mounting here in congress and hopefully we'll have bipartisan support for raising the minimum wage and this overall agenda, but when women succeed, america succeeds. the success of women is truly central and integral to the

success of our country as a great democracy which stands for liberty and justice for all. so thank you again, congresswoman beatty and congresswoman kelly. congresswoman shirley chisholm was a true delta woman. celebrating her and our overall women's agenda just so timely and so profound and thank you for this moment. mrs. beatty: so timely are your words in talking about congresswoman shirley chisholm reminds me of a quote i read of hers and it says tremendous amount of talent are a loss to our society just because that talent wears a skirt. and certainly, like you, she was a phenomenal woman. let me thank you again for your

personal story and for telling us the story of irma, because as i think of my congressional district -- and i think of a phenomenal family, the troy family, a family where i call her mother troy and pass ter troy, they have four sons, but they have three daughters-in-law and go out in the community, whether feeding a child, providing child care or working with the homeless or in housing. so in each of our communities, we have stories because we understand in our community that when women succeed, america succeeds. thank at this time i would like to yield time to congressman jeffries from the great state of new york and it is indeed an honor as he is coming to share with you that he represents the

eighth congressional district. and he is no stranger to this platform. ou see, as our colleague and classmate, we are standing in tonight as co-anchors because congressman jeffries is the real anchor. he and congressman horsford have been stellar in their leadership, in their scholarship, to come here for every special order hour under the congressional black caucus nd lead us in an agenda that makes a difference in the lives of so many people. but to have him here today standing with us, not only as a congressman but as a spouse, as a father, sends a strong message that not only do women understand when women succeed,

america succeeds, but men also understand it. i yield to the gentleman from the great state of new york. mr. jeffries: i thank the distinguished gentlelady from ohio for yielding as well as for the tremendous job that you have done anchoring the c.b.c. special order along with our good friend and dwisht gentlelady from illinois. it reminds me back at home sometimes the pastor in my church would have a guest preacher come and deliver the sermon for the occasion and the guest preacher will do so well, he'll remark, it's a dangerous thing when you bring that type of preacher to the pulpit because the preacher may not want that peacher to come become again. you and congresswoman kelly have done such a tremendous job, certainly stephen horsford and i are at risk of losing our anchor positions. nonetheless we thank you for all

that you have done. it was a particular honor on friday, along with congresswoman yvette clarke and congresswoman kelly and greg meeks and charlie rangel, to be at the official unveiling held by the united states postal service of the shirley chisholm stamp to commemorate the life and times of this tremendous woman, this member of congress, this trail blazer, all of that she had done. i recall she once made an observation to a young person who was considering a career in peculiar service and asked congresswoman chisholm whether he should pursue this or not, and congresswoman chisholm responded by saying to this young man interested in peculiar service, if you decide to run for office, don't be a career politician. be a statesperson. and representative chisholm explained that the difference

is, a career politician is only concerned with the next election but a statesperson is concerned with the next generation. as we stand here today we would all do well to take that piece of advice that congresswoman chisholm uttered decades ago as it relates to the policy agenda connected to the theme, when women succeed, america succeeds. because in order for that pob to believe -- to be possible, we have to be sensitive to what we are doing for the next generation of young people. in the context of child cair availability, universal pre-k, strengthening the head start program that has served so many over decades, what are we doing for the next generation to make sure that women in particular who are raising up the future

leaders of america are equipped with the resources and the ability to provide them with the best possible upbringing. now 50 years ago in this chamber, president lyndon baines johnson spoke before a joint session of congress and declared a war on poverty. we know that as a result of that initiative, there were several legislative programs that were enacted into law between 1964 and 1966, medicare, medicaid, head start, school breakfast program, food stamp act, college work study, minimum wage enhancement. all of these programs taken together contributed in a meaningful way to lifting millions of people out of poverty. now we know as we stand here today, we've still got a lot of work tone to be done but instead of there being a war on poverty, what we've seen far too often in this congressional session and the previous one is a war on women. and that's unfortunate.

that we've gone from trying to lift people up and give them an opportunity to pursue the american dream, to failing to deal with the issue that -- issues that women in america face today and in some instances aggressively trying to roll back rights that were hard-fought and acquired over the years. now as the president mentioned, in this state of the union that all witnessed over the last week, that women in america make 77 centings -- cents for every $1 that a man earns. president obama called it an embarrassment. i agree with that statement. it's also a national outrage. how can it be the case that in america in 2014, we are still allowing for such significant pay disparity that as congresswoman lee pointed out is

even worse for women of color? and so we've got to move forward under the principle to bring to life the notion that one should be provided equal by -- equal pay for equal work. the second thing we can do is deal with this minimum wage issue we have in america. as was pointed out earlier day, 2/3 of minimum wage earners in america are women. nd so the failure to raise the minimum wage, to have indexed it appropriately for inflation, to account for cost of living increases in america, disproportionately adversely affects women in this country. and the reality is, with a , aimum wage of $.25 per hour

-- of $7.25 per hour, a woman in america can work full time, 35 hours per week, across an entire year, and in attempting to raise a family, full well below the federal poverty line. it's the classic definition of working poor. and so the failure to raise the consequences as for women, for the family, and for the overall well being of communities all across america. particularly when considering the fact that in 40% of american households, women are either the primary or the sole breadwinner. and so that means, particularly as it relates to some of our good friends on the other side of this aisle who often express

concerns for family values, and i shir that concern, the best family value is a good paycheck. because if you ensure that when people are working hard, they're paid well for it, then we're ensuring that they have the capacity to take care of their families. of which women increasingly are the sole or primary breadwinners system of i just commend my distinguished colleagues, representative kelly and representative beatty, the dynamic duo of the c.b.c. freshman class for all they've done and will continue to do on behalf of women, communities of color, and america in the context of their tremendous advocacy and i yield back my time. thank you. mrs. beatty: thank you, congressman jeffries. and thank you for reminding us, if we could eliminate the wage gap, if we take just in part of my district, in columbus, in the

metropolitan area, if we were able to eliminate the wage gap, it would allow women to have 77 more weeks of food. it would allow them to have six additional months more to pay their mortgage or rent. it would allow them to also have 2,555 gallons of gas to take the child to child care or to go to work. so it is so important that we understand the agenda and why we stand here today as members of the congressional black caucus, swradvo kating for women in this agenda, because we understand when women succeed, america succeeds. it is my great honor now to yield time to the gentleman from new jersey, the 10th congressional district of new

jersey, and we share a common bond, his father, from new jersey, my father, from new jersey. he is someone who understands all too well the value of when women succeed, america succeeds. he is a spouse, he's a father, of triplets. so it is so important when we talk about early childhood education and when we talk about childhood, child care, that we understand that he understands when women succeed, america succeeds. and i now yield to congressman donald payne. mr. payne: thank you, mr. speaker. and let me just acknowledge my colleagues from the freshman class, the gentlelady from ohio and the gentlelady from illinois , when horing this hour

women succeed, america succeeds, and i now am one of two members of the freshman class that has not had the opportunity to anchor this hour. mr. horsford and mr. jeffries have done such an exceptional job in that job and as mr. jeffries pointed out, ms. beatty is always ready for the challenge and has demonstrated, as was mentioned earlier, has stepped up to the plate and hit the ground running on -- in the halls of congress and has demonstrated her leadership on many numerous occasions. ith that, let me just say that we know we've made great progress in this country. closing the gender wage gap.

but women still as has been stated, and we need to continue to let it resonate, earn just 7 cents on every dollar -- 77 cents on every dollar a man earns for the same work. for women of color, unfortunately, naturally, i'm not surprised, the gap is even wider, with women of color earning just 64 cents for every dollar that a man makes. in new jersey, the gap has even grown worse. in just one year, women in new jersey earn on average $13,000 less than their male counterpart. now that's shocking. that is absolutely incredible that the gap, the margin is that wide. over the course of that woman's