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 , rule 20. recorded votes on postponed questions will be taken later. for what purpose does the gentleman from pennsylvania seek recognition? >> mr. speaker, i mover to suspend the rules and pass s. 25 as amended. the speaker pro tempore: the clerk will report the title of the bill. the clerk: senate 25, an act to direct the secretary of the interior to convey certain federal features of the electric distribution system to the south utah valley electric service

district, and for other purposes. the speaker pro tempore: pursuant to the rule, the gentleman from pennsylvania, mr. fitzpatrick, and the gentleman from washington, mr. smith, will each control 20 minutes. the chair recognizes the gentleman from pennsylvania. mr. fitzpatrick: mr. speaker, i ask unanimous consent that all members may have five legislative days to revise and and insert remarks extraneous material on the bill under consideration. the speaker pro tempore: without objection, so ordered. mr. fitzpatrick: mr. speaker, i yield myself such time as i may consume. the speaker pro tempore: the gentleman is recognized for as much time as he he wishes. mr. fitzpatrick: mr. speaker, president washington once said, the willingness with which our young people are likely to serve in any war, no matter how justified, shall be directly proportional to how they perceive veterans of earlier wars were appreciated by our nation. there is no doubt that we appreciate the service and sacrifice of each generation of veterans. from our original veterans,

patriots, to those who landed at normandy during world war ii to present, we as americans and as lawmakers are forever in debt to the dedication of our military men and women who bore the pain of battle, physically and emotionally. while we stand here in this chamber each day and pledge our allegiance to the american flag that they defend, while we are able to act as a democratic body freely elected by the people thanks to their sacrifices, sometimes simple appreciation isn't enough. we have a chance today to treat our veterans with the honor they deserve by ensuring that they are fully compensated for their service during retirement, while also addressing other concerns facing our nation. today we will take up the legislation under consideration to ensure that all service men and women who were enlisted prior to january 1 of this year will receive the full cost of living adjustments in retirement before and after the age of 62.

furthermore, this bill also ensures our seniors will have access to the health care services they depend on through medicare. for too long the relationship between doctor and patient has been strained by the confusion and instability of a well-intentioned but unaddressed problem with the medicare program itself. known as the sustainable growth rate or s.g.r. a component of this legislation works to ensure that seniors are able to receive the care they depend on from the physicians who know them. while also guaranteeing that those physicians are fairly compensated by medicare through a fund until reform a cheeved in the spring. in doing so this legislation provides much needed stability for the medical community by ensuring that physicians have the predictability in billing they need to further their practice and to focus on their patients. by taking up and passing this legislation in bipartisan fashion, we could address areas

of critical concern while working together to make sure we are also being fiscally responsible. this legislation provides a necessary offset that is in the same vain of the bipartisan budget agreement this chamber passed just over a month ago. the american people expect us to make the tough decisions that help them in their daily lives. be it a military veteran looking to secure his retirement after a lifetime of duty and commitment to the senior making sure their next doctors visit is free from any undue stress or ensuring that physicians can further their passion of serving their community. this legislation provides a path forward for our nation and this body in addressing their concerns. i urge full bipartisan support of this legislation and encourage the whole house to consider the important needs that the bill addresses. i reserve the balance of my

time. the speaker pro tempore: the gentleman reserves the balance of his time. the gentleman from washington, mr. smith. mr. smith: thank you. i rise to claim the time in opposition. the speaker pro tempore: the gentleman is recognized for time in opposition. mr. smith: thank you. i yield myself such time as i may consume. there are a number of problems with this piece of legislation, one of the biggest ones is just the process of it. it's been dropped on us at the absolute last minute. on a bill that has profound impacts on the budget in a number of different areas we just momentsing a received a broad outline of the score how it will impact that budget moments ago. we cannot -- did not have time to consider this legislation adequately to figure out what impact it will have on the budget. there are a couple things we do know about it that creates a major problem. yes, in the short term this pleases two constituency groups. it pleases veterans and pleases doctors by giving them the money that they want. but what was not mentioned in the speech talking about this bill in favor of it is how it is paid for. it is paid for by adding another year to sequestration.

now, there's a couple interesting things about this. first of all, that's eight years from now. we have heard nothing from the other side of the aisle about how government is spending too much money, about how the deficit and debt are out of control, yet here we have up front money being spent on the promise that eight years from now we will cover those costs. what's worse, eight years from now the way we are going to cover those costs is through sequestration, across-the-board cuts that will cut other entitlement, other mandatory spending programs. so we are really simply robbing one group of deserving people to pay another group of deserving people. that's hardly responsible and hardly helpful. there are a couple other specific aspects of this that i want to next from the department of defense standpoint. focusing now just on the portion that addresses the cost of living reduction. i want to make sure we understand what exactly that cost of living reduction was. in the military if you serve 20 years you can retire at that point with your full pension,

which is basically half of your pay at that point. this bill took, for those people between the ages of 42 and 62, working age, and he reduced their cola by 1%, it didn't reduce the pension, it reduced how much that pension would be increased by each year by 1%. now, i don't deny that that is a hit and a cost, but what is it offsetting? the pentagon has to pay this cost, or at least a portion of this cost. they have to pay the old bill, again i'm just getting the new score, but in the old bill it was roughly $700 million a year that d.o.d. had to take out of their operating budget and put in to paying for this pension. so by doing this we are taking roughly $700 million a year out of the pentagon budget. what does that mean? what it means is a further blow to readiness. republican and democratic members of the armed services committee have rightly screamed that we are cutting readiness to

the point where we are not training our forces to prepare to fight the fight that we ask them to fight. now, the gentleman made an excellent point that basically what's going to make people want to sign up for the military? he mentioned that while making sure we take care of our veterans, i certainly think that's an issue. i tell you for the last 10 years we have increased the g.i. bill. we have increased pay every single year. we have made dramatic increases in combat pay. i applaud this chamber for the bipartisan way we have taken care of our military veterans. one other major issue that's going to determine whether or not people want to join the military and stay in it is whether or not we train them and prepare them for the fight we are going to ask them to do. what the consequences of this is going to be is it's another blow to that. if you are a pilot, you will not have enough fuel or enough fixed equipment to train as off as you need to. if you are an infantryman you will not have the bullets to

practice as much as you need to. doing this creates the one thing that everyone has said we don't want and that is a hollow force, a force that exists but is not trained to fight. -- fight the fight we ask them to do. there was a great and compelling story told by the chairman of the armed services committee in an argument for why readiness was important and that was the korean war. those were the troops we sent over in the initial effort to stop the north koreans. those troops were not trained and men died because they were not trained and they were not prepared for a battle that he we sent them into. we are robbing one portion of the pentagon budget to pay another. and i think we are robbing precisely the portion that we can least afford to rob. i don't think there's anything noble about standing up and taking money away from the readiness that's going to train our troops to fight fights we as politicians send them to fight. i will say on the s.g.r. fix, dock fix, that's a short-term problem and we need to deal with it.

i would be very, very happy to pay for that and support that strongly. i do not like the pay for. personally i would be more than willing to raise taxes or cut spending in other places other than to once again go back to the sequester option, and also to kick it out eight years from now. this is an irresponsible bill that approaches very, very real problems. make no mistake about it, can you stand up and talk about what you're paying for, who you are giving the money to, but i do hope people will address who you are taking the money from. you are taking the money from other recipients of mandatory spending by doing sequester again, and as importantly you are taking money away from the readiness accounts that will train our troops so that they are able to fight so that we will hopefully do the one thing that i think will be unconscionable and that is send troops to a battle we have not prepared them for. with that i reserve the balance f my time. the speaker pro tempore: do you reserve?

mr. smith: i said i reserve. the speaker pro tempore: the gentleman from pennsylvania. mr. fitzpatrick: i reserve. the speaker pro tempore: the gentleman from pennsylvania reserves. the gentleman from washington. mr. smith: i yield 2 1/2 minutes to the gentlelady from texas, though she is in support of the bill, i'm happy to give her the time. the speaker pro tempore: the gentlelady from texas is recognized for 2 1/2 minutes. ms. jackson lee: i thank the gentleman and i thank the manager of this legislation. i thank our chairman, our ranking member of the armed services committee for his consistent diligence on acting on behalf of the men and women in the united states military, and certainly those who have already served. i for one will associate myself with the disappointment of the offset that has been offered in this legislation. no one likes sequester, and i'll add an additional point of contention is that this city is -- this nation is not broke.

economists have said over and over again we are not broke. we can fully fund and should fund our military as it relates to preparedness, that's part of protecting the homeland, which i serve on the homeland security committee. and then of course we all have tried to deliberate on what we can do best for our doctors under what we call the s.r.g., or the doctor fix. let me just say this as i rise to support this legislation, because i do come from texas and i do interact with veterans across the nation and others, and as painful as the extending out of the sequester 2024, i want to just offer this thought. . hopefully the light will come on that we are not broke, that we will rid ourselves of sequester and begin to budget fully, to provide investment for our people. and so the reason for advocating, because as i go home every weekend and throughout the week when i'm in the district, i'll run into military personnel and/or

veterans to speak about the impact that this would have on them, their families and certainly i believe that this was one that needs to be corrected. and i'd like to see us working fairly across the board, that we find a way to respond to the high numbers that this costs those ell to work with with optional ideas. i hope we have no sequester. as my good friend has indicated, it's a poor way of managing our budget. let me also say because of the many low-income areas and the physicians i've interacted with who indicate how difficult it is to serve my low-income patients or my patients that are elderly, that the doctor fix is crucial for the 18th congressional district in providing health care for those who are in need, particularly those who are elderly. as s we look with a scant

to how this has been formulated, and i know this is one that's come to us, but i would hope that we would do this fix this time, mr. speaker, and then work to undo the offset so we can help seniors and doctors. i thank the gentleman and i yield back. the speaker pro tempore: the gentleman from washington reserves. the gentleman from pennsylvania is recognized. mr. fitzpatrick: i continue to reserve. the speaker pro tempore: the gentleman from washington. mr. smith: i have no further speakers so if you have no further speakers i'll close. the speaker pro tempore: the gentleman from washington is recognized. mr. smith: i yield myself the balance of the time. i want to drive home the point on the armed services committee. that's the impact the personnel costs are having on the department of defense. they are an increasing, growing part of our defense budget. in large part because we have been very, very generous to the people who serve in the military, in terms of pay benefits and retirement. as everyone who serves on the armed services committee knows that increasing personnel costs squeezes out other portions of

the budget. i talked a lot about readiness. i think that's incredibly important, but also procurement, making sure that the men and women who serve in the military have the equipment that they need to fight the fight. we can have a great military where everyone is very well paid, the benefits go on forever, but they don't have the equipment or the training necessary to fight. and i will tell you every single expert, right, left, middle, wherever, that's studied this question -- we just had four prominent think tanks spanning that spectrum talking about the future of the department of defense budget, every single one of those experts said that if we do nothing to rein in personnel costs, that is precisely the force that we will have. it will be hollow. it will not have the equipment and the training to do what it is we ask them to do. now, we may not think that the 1% cut that was done here in the cola is the best way to go. i can entertain that. i understand veterans who were

promised this expect to receive it, but if it's not that, what is it? what is on the table? all we have done in this chamber has said no, no, no to every effort the department of defense has put out there to try to rein in this spending and to try to rein in the spending, as i said, so that we can have a military that lives up to what we want it to live up to. this is a very, very real issue. once again, we are punting it and completely ignoring it, completely unaddressed by supporters of this bill. they are addressing this narrow area, making the broader problem worse. as i said at the beginning, also once again adding sequester back into the lexicon for another year. this is not a solution to any problem other than a series of political ones. and we have just too many difficult choices to make to simply rely on politics with every bill that we bring up here. we got to make some hard choices. this bill doesn't do it. it punts once again in every conceivable way and simply makes the problems worse. i know it's not going to

happen, but i would nonetheless urge this body to oppose this bill and make some responsible choices, actually make choices as to what to do with the budget instead of continually punting on every difficult decision that comes before us. i assure you this will not be the last one, by any stretch of the imagination. with that i yield back the balance of my time. the speaker pro tempore: the gentleman from washington yields back his time. the gentleman from pennsylvania, mr. fitzpatrick. mr. fitzpatrick: mr. speaker, i yield myself such time as i may consume. the speaker pro tempore: the gentleman is recognized. mr. fitzpatrick: mr. speaker, it's always responsible to make the promises we made to our nation's veterans. what's before the house today is an extension of current policy that was passed in overwhelming bipartisan fashion right here in this chamber less than two months ago, and in addition, it does protect the promises that this nation has made to its veterans. so i encourage my colleagues to vote in favor of the bill, to care for those who have borne the battle, and to send that message to all who can hear it.

i yield back the balance of my time. the speaker pro tempore: the gentleman yields back his time. the question is, will the house suspend the rules and pass senate 25, as amended. those in favor say aye. those opposed, no. in the opinion of the chair, 2/3 having responded in the affirmative -- the gentleman from pennsylvania. mr. fitzpatrick: 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 otion will be postponed. pursuant to clause 8 of rule 20, proceedings will resume on motions previously postponed. votes will be taken in the following order -- ordering the previous question on house resolution 475, adopting house resolution 475, if ordered, and suspending the rules and

passing s. 25. the first electronic vote will be conducted as a 15-minute vote. remaining electronic votes will be conducted as five-minute votes. the unfinished business of the house is the vote on ordering the previous question on house resolution 475 on which the yeas and nays are ordered. the clerk will report the title of the resolution. the clerk: house calendar number 84, house resolution 475, resolution providing for consideration of the bill h.r. 3193, to amend the consumer financial protection act of 2010, to strengthen review authority of the financial stability oversight council of regulations issued by the bureau of consumer financial protection and for other purposes. providing for proceedings during the period from february 13, 2014, through february 24, 2014, and for other purposes. the speaker pro tempore: the question is on ordering the previous question. 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 222 and the nays are 195. the previous question is ordered. the question is on adoption of the resolution. those in favor say aye. those opposed, no. in the opinion of the chair, the ayes have it.

mr. polis: mr. speaker, on that i request a recorded vote. the speaker pro tempore: the gentleman from colorado. mr. polis: on that i request a recorded vote. the speaker pro tempore: a recorded vote is requests. those favoring a recorded vote will rise. a sufficient number having arisen, a recorded vote is ordered. 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 223, the nays are 193 with one answering present. the resolution is adopted. without objection, a motion to reconsider is laid on the table. the unfinished business is the vote on the motion of the gentleman from pennsylvania, mr. fitzpatrick, to suspend the s. 25 on pass h.r. -- which the yeas and nays are ordered. the clerk will report the title of the bill. the clerk: senate 25, an act to direct the secretary of the

interior to convey certain federal features of the electric distribution system to the south utah valley electric service district and for other purposes. the speaker pro tempore: the question is, will the house suspend the rules and pass the bill as amended. members will record their votes by electronic device. this is a five-minute vote. [captioning made possible by the national captioning institute, inc., in cooperation with the united states house of representatives. any use of the closed-captioned coverage of the house proceedings for political or commercial purposes is expressly prohibited by the u.s. house of representatives.]

the speaker pro tempore: on this vote the yeas are 326, the nays are 90, one recorded as present. 2/3 of those voting having responded in the affirmative, the rules are suspended, the bill is passed and, without objection, the motion to reconsider is laid on the table.

the speaker pro tempore: the chair lays before the house a communication. the clerk: the honorable the speaker, house of representatives, sir. due to my recent appointment to the house judiciary committee, i hereby aye resign from the house committee on the budget -- i hereby resign from the house committee on the budget. signed, sincerely, david sin linney, in -- david cicilline, member of congress. the speaker pro tempore: without objection, the resignation is accepted. the house will be in order. members will take their conversations off the house floor.

for what purpose does the gentleman from new jersey seek recognition? >> mr. speaker, i move to suspend the rules and pass the bill, h.r. 3578. the speaker pro tempore: the clerk will report the tinal. the clerk: union calendar number 253, h.r. 3578, a bill to ensure that any new or resliced -- revise the requirement providing for the screening, testing or treatment of an airman or an air traffic controller for a sleep disorder is adopted pursuant to a rulemaking proceeding and for other purposes. the speaker pro tempore: does the gentleman call up the bill as amended? >> yes. the speaker pro tempore: pursuant to the rule, the gentleman from new jersey, mr. lobiondo, and the gentleman from washington, mr. larsen, each will control 20 minutes. the chair recognizes the gentleman from new jersey. mr. loebsack: mr. speaker, i ask -- mr. lobiondo: mr. speaker, i ask unanimous con sent that all members may have -- consent that all members may have five legislative days in which to revise and extend their remarks and include extraneous materials for the record on

h.r. 3578. the speaker pro tempore: without objection. mr. lobiondo: mr. speaker, i yield myself such time as i may consume. the speaker pro tempore: the gentleman is recognized. mr. lobiondo: thank you, mr. speaker. i rise today in support of h.r. 3578, first let me begin by thanking some of my colleagues first and foremost. congressman larsen. also congressman beau chon, lew pins -- i will pinsky and graves for their support in introducing this very important bill. before i explain the bill, i ask unanimous consent to enter into the record letters of support for h.r. 3578. the speaker pro tempore: without objection. mr. lobiondo: thank you, mr. speaker. 3578 addresses the medical certification process for the pilots and air traffic controllers as it relies -- as it relates only to sleep disorders. . ed only be certificate

through intervals. it depends on the type of activity they're seeking to perform. airline pilots, private pilot, etc., and all other factors such as age. regardless, pilots and controllers undergo a thorough medical review process and the f.a.a. ultimately decides whether or not to issue them a medical certification. further, there are no certain medical conditions that the f.a.a. automatically deems as disqualifying. currently, pilots with one or more of those conditions, including sleep apnea, are required to seek a special certificate which is issued at the sole discretion of the f.a.a. and only if the applicant can prove they will not endanger public safety. neither process is perfect, but it's a process that works. in november of 2013, the f.a.a. announced a proposal to significantly and arbitrarily modify the medical requirements

for airmen who might be at risk of having a sleep disorder, such as sleep apnea, even in the absence of any colin cal evidence. the f.a.a.'s proposal would effectively assume overweight pilots have a sleep disorder based solely on their body mass index and would ask them to prove otherwise at their own expense. it's a scenario of being guilty before being proven innocent. the potential cost to these pilots could be thousands of dollars. the f.a.a. proposal announced without any input from the stakeholders is neither reasonable nor effective. however, health issues can arise unexpectedly, which is why i have always supported reasonable, effective and proactive efforts to improve aviation safety. but the reaction related to sleep disorders was carried out behind closed doors without input from stakeholders. while i applaud the f.a.a. of

seeking stakeholder input recently, it's a little bit too little too late. safety is my top priority as chairman of the aviation subcommittee. that is why the legislation we are considering today, 3578, does not prohibit the f.a.a. from implementing new medical certification requirements for sleep disorders, but it does require the f.a.a. in the case of pilots to conduct an open rulemaking process, and in the case of air traffic controllers, to use a process established under the current federal employment law. finally, it is important to note that h.r. 3578 does not change the f.a.a.'s medical certification process or otherwise prevent the agency from responding to new medical issues in a timely manner. this legislation applies only to proposed changes to the medical certification process for sleep disorders. in addition, the rulemaking process required by this legislation does not apply to

the enforcement of requirements providing for the screening, testing or treatment of pilots and controllers for sleep disorders in force prior to november 1, 2013. 3578 is a bipartisan bill that is supported by a wide range of stakeholders, and i urge my colleagues to support it. and with that i reserve the balance of my time. the speaker pro tempore: the gentleman reserves. the gentleman from washington is recognized. mr. larsen: thank you, mr. speaker. i yield myself such time as i may consume. the speaker pro tempore: the gentleman is recognized. mr. larsen: mr. speaker, i rise in support of h.r. 3578, and i want to thank chairman lobiondo for bringing this issue to the attention of the committee and working so hard to bring it to the floor so quickly. this bill would require the federal aviation administration to go through a rulemaking process if it chooses to propose and implement a new pilot medical certification requirement for sleep apnea. under current law, in order for a pilot to be certificated, every pilot is screened by an aviation medical examiner to ensure they are safe and

capable of piloting an aircraft. if a pilot is diagnosed with obstructive sleep apnea or any other disqualifying medical condition, that pilot must obtain a special issuance medical certificate from f.a.a. to keep flying. st november, the f.a.a. be a bankrupt lute -- abruptly announced changes as it pertains only to sleep apnea. the new policy would require all airmen with a body mass index, or b.m.i., of 40 or more to undergo new testing and evaffuation requirements for obstructive -- evaluation requirements for obstructive sleep apnea. pilot unions have raised concerns that the f.a.a.'s proposed policy changes could impose significant under do costs on thousands of airmen without an adequate opportunity for the public to comment on the relative safety merits of these new requirements. h.r. 3578 would ensure

transparency and require the f.a.a. to initiate a rulemaking if it chooses to implement a new pilot medical certification requirement for sleep apnea. this bill would not prohibit the f.a.a. from implementing new medical certification requirements, but the rulemaking process will provide the opportunity for all interested parties to comment on any proposed changes. so i urge my colleagues to support h.r. 3578, and with that i reserve the balance of my time. the speaker pro tempore: the gentleman reserves. the gentleman from new jersey is recognized. mr. lobiondo: mr. speaker, i yield three minutes to the gentleman from missouri, mr. graves, who's been a big help with this issue. the speaker pro tempore: the gentleman from missouri is recognized. mr. graves: thank you, mr. speaker. mr. speaker, as the general aviation pilot myself, i was shocked when f.a.a. director announced a forthcoming guidance to requiring additional testing for pilots. as was mentioned, these arbitrary numbers of b.m.i. or

40 or neck size of 17 inches, and not only did he indicate in december that f.a.a. would move forward with this new guidance on sleep apnea but challenge congress by saying if congress passes a law to force industry consultation, we will be compliant, but until they do so we will move forward with our guidance. that's a quote from himself. today, congress is acting against the f.a.a.'s egregious assumption that these pilots pose a safety risk if untreated. when it comes to general aviation safety record, there's simply no data or evidence that suggests that sleep apnea or any other medical issue, for that matter, is a cause behind general aviation accidents. in fact, most of these accidents happen as a result of weather. g.a.o. pilots know every time they get in a plane they are taking their own lives into their hands. so pilots are not knowingly going to put themselves in an unsafe situation. you know, what's so absurd about this process is just the medical certification in general.

the f.a.a. requires g.a. pilots to go through -- or any pilot for that matter, to go through certification for every two years for third class medical and every year for a second or third class medical, but there's nothing in that process that guarantees that pilot's fitness to fly within that time period. it's up to the pilot to determine his fitness to fly himself or herself and he or she knows best. general aviation supports 1.2 million jobs and contributes $150 million annually to the g.d.p. there's 223,000 general aviation aircraft out there serving 19,000 small and regional airports and accounts for 27 million flight hours and serves 166 million passengers every year. it's more important most people realize that adding burdensome regulations like f.a.a. is proposing on sleep apnea does not discourage further participation, at least in general aviation. this rule would have some dramatic affects on commercial aviation which is also facing a

pilot shortage in and of itself. based on these arbitrary benchmarks a pilot will be required, as pointed out, will be required to get further examinations and sleep tests which is going to slow the process down that much more. but the outcry from the pilot community, both in general aviation and commercial, has led to the introduction of this bill, h.r. 3578. what this bill simply does is require the f.a.a. to go through the normal rulemaking process, which allows for public comment and requires them to analyze the impact of the regulation. the f.a.a. should follow the rules, plain and simple. that's all we're asking. they should listen to pilots and take their viewpoints into account. i want to thank chairman lobiondo and all the others for sponsoring this piece of legislation, for joining me to make sure the f.a.a. goes through the proper channels in issuing this regulation. you know, similar legislation, addressing sleep apnea for truckers, was passed by both the house and senate last fall and signed by the president, and i hope my house colleagues will join me in supporting this

similarly commonsense piece of legislation. i thank you. the speaker pro tempore: the gentleman's time has expired. the gentleman from washington is recognized. mr. larsen: thank you, mr. speaker. i reserve the balance of my time. the speaker pro tempore: the gentleman reserves. the gentleman from new jersey is recognized. mr. lobiondo: i'd like to yield three minutes to the gentleman from new york, mr. hanna. the speaker pro tempore: the gentleman from new york is recognized for three minutes. thank the want to gentleman from new jersey. mr. speaker, i rise today in support of 3578, which would require the f.a.a. to conduct a formal rulemaking process for sleep apnea certifications for pilots and air traffic controllers. as a member of the small business committee and transportation committee and as a pilot, i am deeply concerned that complex federal regulations and bureaucracy are hurting america's aviation industry. when deemed absolutely necessary, new f.a.a. rules should follow a transparent and open process that includes

strong oversight and input from all stakeholders. the proposed sleep apnea regulation was a broad administration guidance with no oversight or input. furthermore, this is yet another example of the administration's regulating -- regulation in search of a problem. according to the civil aviation medical association, there was no, no scientific evidence that sleep apnea has compromised aviation safety. according to yesterday's "washington post," the number of small planes flying across this country has fallen by nearly 200,000 since 1980. production of single engine airplanes has fallen to a 20-fold -- fallen 20-fold to below 700 per year. we need to ensure that any regulation, help, not hinder the aviation industry in growing and pros perg. a-- prospering. across the nation, nearly 1.2 million workers depend on the

general aviation industry. this is especially true in rural upstate new york. i encourage the f.a.a. to ensure that we promote safety in a way that is consistent with growing our vital aviation industry and it makes sense in the real world. h.r. 3578 would require the f.a.a. to follow a proven and transparent process when ensuring -- when issuing rules, and so i urge my colleagues to support this bill. i yield back the balance of my time. the speaker pro tempore: the gentleman yields back the balance of his time. the gentleman from washington is recognized. mr. larsen: thank you, mr. speaker. i continue to reserve the balance of my time. the speaker pro tempore: the gentleman reserves. the gentleman from new jersey is recognized. mr. lobiondo: how much time remains? the speaker pro tempore: the gentleman from new jersey has 11 minutes remaining. mr. lobiondo: i'd now like to recognize mr. bucshon for three minutes. i thank him for his help with this issue. the speaker pro tempore: the gentleman is recognized for three minutes. mr. bucshon: thank you, mr. speaker. i rise today in support of this bill. the house passed my bill which

requires the department of transportation to address the issue of sleep apnea for truck drivers to a rural and not guidance potential saving the industry $1 billion. unfortunately, our nation's pilots and air traffic controllers are -- we brought a bill to the bill to protect them. as a doctor, i know firsthand that sleeping disorders are incredibly serious and can be very dangerous. however, i also know that you can't diagnosis any patient by a set of arbitrary guidelines and stereotypes. like any other major disease can only be diagnosed through proper testing and conversation with a doctor. issuing guidance based on nonmedical factors on this issue for pilots and air traffic controllers will cause doctors to order unnecessary tests, driving up the cost of health care and potentially affecting our nation's airline travelers. i urge all of my colleagues to vote yes on this piece of legislation, and i yield back.

thank you. the speaker pro tempore: the gentleman yields back. the gentleman from washington is recognized. mr. larsen: thank you, mr. speaker. i continue to reserve the balance of my time. the speaker pro tempore: the gentleman reserve. the gentleman from new jersey. mr. lobiondo: mr. speaker, i do not have any more speakers. and i am prepared to close when mr. larsen is finished when he closes. the speaker pro tempore: the gentleman from washington is recognized. mr. larsen: thank you, mr. speaker. i just again like to ask my colleagues to support this legislation. it's bipartisan. worked hard to get it here quickly, and appreciate people supporting this. and with that i yield back the balance of my time. the speaker pro tempore: the gentleman yields back. the gentleman from new jersey is recognized. mr. lobiondo: thank you, mr. speaker. in closing, i'd like to again thank my colleagues, mr. larsen and colleagues who were interested in this issue. i'd like to reiterate that this bill is about transparency and about working with stakeholders . two areas in which the federal government desperately needs to improve. i strongly urge all of my colleagues to support the bill, and i yield back the balance of my time. the speaker pro tempore: the question is will the house suspend the rules and pass the

bill h.r. 3578, as amended. those in favor say aye. those opposed, no. in the opinion of the chair, 2/3 having responded in the firmative, the rules are suspended -- the gentleman from new jersey. mr. lobiondo: mr. speaker, i object to the vote on the grounds that a quorum is not present and i make a point of order that a quorum is not present. the speaker pro tempore: pursuant to clause 8 of rule 20, further proceedings on this otion will be postponed. for what purpose does the gentleman from new jersey seek recognition? mr. lobiondo: thank you, mr. speaker. i move that the house suspend the rules and pass h.r. 3448,

the small cap liquidity reform act of 2014, as amended. the speaker pro tempore: the clerk will report the title of the bill. the clerk: h.r. 3448, a bill to amend the securities exchange act of 1934, to provide for an optional pilot program, allowing certain emerging growth companies to increase the tick sizes of their stocks. the speaker pro tempore: pursuant to the rule, the gentleman from new jersey, mr. garret, and the gentleman from delaware, mr. carney, each will control 20 minutes. the chair recognizes the gentleman from new jersey. mr. garrett: thank you, mr. speaker. i ask unanimous consent that all members have five legislative days within which to revise and extend their remarks and submit extraneous materials for the record to h.r. 3448 as amended, currently under consideration. the speaker pro tempore: without objection. mr. garrett: mr. speaker, i recognize myself for as much time as i may consume. the speaker pro tempore: the gentleman is recognized. mr. garrett: so again, thank you, mr. speaker, and i do rise in support of h.r. 3448, which is the small cap liquidity reform act of 2013.

this bill approved by, note this, 57-0 by the financial services committee last year. and represent yet again, they come to the floor with another bipartisan and commonsense effort by this house to promote small business capital formation. and i do want to thank the gentleman who just arrived here from wisconsin, didn't just arrive from wisconsin, but has arrived here to the chair next to me, mr. duffy, for all of his hard work and leadership in bringing this very important piece of legislation to the floor. and i also would like to thank mr. carney from delaware for all of his hard work on the support of this legislation as well. what are we talking about here? today many small publicly traded companies are finding it more and more difficult to attract investors and demand for trading liquidity in their stocks. as a result, these companies may have trouble obtaining the investor capital they need for their companies to grow and create jobs. so h.r. 3448 would begin to address this liquidity crunch by testing a pilot program,

whether increasing the minimum trading increment, also called on the tick size, for certain emerging growth companies, e.g.c.'s, from a penny to five cents or 10 cents and whether this would promote liquidity by incentivizing market makers and other investors that trade in these stocks. what it does do is concentrate their trading interests within a few price points. all this may sound like a lot of wall street and stock market jargon but at its core this bill is a simple bill. it's aimed at helping america's small public companies obtain the capital they need from invest source they can grow their businesses. what the bill does is leave most of all the details of designing and administering the tick size program to the experts over at the s.e.c. as a result, the s.e.c. should have the discretion it needs to device this pilot program that reflects the views of all the market participants and all of the interested parties.

and then that generates the maximum amount of deep and useful data on how different tick sizes impact trading in this stock market area. indeed, by first establishing a temporary pilot program, this bill will ensure that any potential and permanent changes to tick sizes that may be made some time in the future, they'll be done only in a thoughtful, incremental and a data-driven manner. and this data that i talk about, this data generated from this pilot program, may also be useful into how other aspects of the stock market work. but in this point, lets me be clear. -- let me be clear. this bill is focused on improving small business capital formation. this is not a bill to reform the fundamental structure of the u.s. equity market, nor is it a substitute for a more detailed, holistic review by the s.e.c., how the whole market works. ultimately, there are no guarantees that a tick size pilot program will achieve the desired results and that the benefits of any future action

of tick sizes will outweigh the cost. but this, we should all agree that this commonsense approach will help small businesses grow, it's worth trying and we need many more like it. again, i'll conclude with this, saying that this bill was approved by the financial services committee, 57-0, in addition, many market participants, as well as the s.e.c. chair white, at least two of her colleagues, commissioners gallagher and noir, they have all vocaly supported the concept of this -- vocali supported the concept of this tick pilot program. i hope this legislation will serve as a final push forward, getting this tick size program forward and moving off the ground and i urge my colleagues to again promote small business capital formation by passing h.r. 3448 and i urge my friends over in the senate to take up this bill immediately as well. with that i reserve the balance of my time.

the speaker pro tempore: the gentleman reserves the balance of his time. the gentleman from delaware is recognized. mr. carney: thank you, mr. speaker. mr. speaker, i yield myself such time as i may consume. the speaker pro tempore: the gentleman is recognized. mr. carney: thank you, mr. speaker. i rise in support of h.r. 3448 and i'd like to thank mr. garret, chairman of the capital markets, and in particular i'd like to thank the gentleman from wisconsin, mr. duffy, for his good work on this piece of legislation. i've certainly enjoyed working with him on it. i particularly want to applaud mr. duffy for his willingness to address concerns raised by stakeholders, members of the committee and those we heard from during the hearing on this bill. i appreciate his commitment to working in a bipartisan way in developing good and workable policy in this legislation. as has been already said, the purpose of our bill is really pretty simple. we know that small businesses are the engine of job creation in this country. we want to encourage investors

to take a closer look at small businesses and invest in them. so that they can continue to grow and create jobs once they've gone public. in my home state of delaware, as a corporate center we have a lot of people who spend a lot of time paying attention to corporate formation and corporate governance. in a former life, as the state secretary of finance, and as lieutenant governor, i worked with a lot of these people. they've been following the trends over the past 10 years and they've seen, observed the decline in i.p.o.'s and the change in growth of emerging growth companies after going public. and that's why last year i worked with my colleague, mr. fincher, from tennessee, on a provision in the jobs act that created an on ramp for companies going public. the bill has already been helping fuel the

recent uptick we've seen in the initial public offerings. which is very good for job growth in this economy. h.r. 3448 builds on that work by helping companies grow after their i.p.o. our hope has been described as that in increasing the increments that stocks trade in will draw more attention to these small emerging growth companies. we hope that brokers will spend more time and resources researching these companies and ultimately encourage greater investment in them. this increased coverage from brokers and analysts will help small companies grow and create jobs. we've heard concerns about some unintended consequences that increase tick size could have which is why this bill instructs the s.e.c. to complete a pilot program to better examine the effects and effectiveness of larger spreads. additionally this bill gives the s.e.c. the flexibility to

implement a pilot program in a way that will produce better information, the best information on how to proceed afterwards. but thanks to members and staffs on both sides of the aisle working closely together, we were able to come up with a bill that makes sense and that addresses the concerns that we heard from other members, from stakeholders, and from the financial services committee hearing that we had. the four amendments accepted in the committee were all consistent with our original objective and each approved -- and eem each improved the bill -- and each improved the bill based on input that we received from members and stake hoders. this bill is truly -- stakeholders. this bill is truly a bipartisan effort, as mr. garrett pointed out, it passed out of the committee on a 57-0 vote. as with any piece of legislation, once we got into the weeds, it turned out to be a little bit more complicated

than we initially thought. but the end result is a good product that members on both sides of the aisle can support. i want to close again by thanking mr. duffy and his staff for their hard work, for working together with us, for involving us in the discussions about the particulars of this bill. and i urge members on both sides of the aisle to support h.r. 3448, the small cap liquidity reform act of 2013, and with that i yield back the balance of my time. the speaker pro tempore: the gentleman yields back the balance of his time. the gentleman from new jersey is recognized. mr. garrett: at this time i would like to yield to the gentleman from wisconsin, the prime sponsor of this legislation, the gentleman who has been the driving force behind this idea, mr. duffy, as much time as he may consume. the speaker pro tempore: the gentleman from wisconsin is recognized. mr. duffy: thank you, mr. speaker. and thank you, mr. chairman, for yielding time. as both you and the gentleman from delaware mentioned, it's

pretty remarkable that on financial services, where the committee comes together and doesn't always agree on the particulars of every debate that we have, that this bill came out and we had a vote of 57-0, moving it forward. i think it underscores the fact that there was a lot of real put-in on the front end, making sure we were working out the cinks and the concerns. i'm very appreciative of mr. carney from delaware and all of the effort and help he put in and from mr. garrett making sure that we could put a package together that we can get a lot of folks to buy into. we all realize that job creation, especially with a slower moving economy, is incredibly important. and job creation at the higher levels come from our small businesses. our emerging growth companies. and as mr. carney earlier

referenced, that's why financial services came together and passed a bill out of the house, along with the senate moving and the president signing the jobs act. that helped emerging growth companies actually get on the on ramp and go public. accessing more and better capital. what we've seen, though, are a few concerns from those small emerging growth companies that are going public, that they're not as easily accessing capital as they thought they may. and that's why we've come together, to go, how can we start a pilot program to see if we can enhance the interests in the capital and liquidity of these emerging growth companies? and it really is not very complicated, as mr. garrett indicated. this is a five-year pilot program. so, if things don't go as expected, the program will end. and if it goes as well as we think it may, we can continue this on permanently.

and we're truly looking at small emerging growth companies, those that have revenue of less than $750 million a year. again, the small fast-growing companies, it's a small space of the market, it's only 2% of trading on and off exchanges. there's been a lot of debate as we've done this about well, what's an appropriate model to use when we increase the tick size? do we do a trade at, quote at, midpoint matchs? a lot of people came to us with a lot of different ideas and we both realized there's a larger debate going on right now that involves our exchanges. to be very clear, no one here who worked on this legislation wants to impact, in this bill, that debate. the intent of this bill is not to influence that debate at all. it's really very specifically and nearly tailored to help small businesses as they look

for additional capital to grow and create more jobs. and that's why we've given the s.e.c. the ability to set up different baskets or different segments. one can be trade act, one could have price improvement of a different variation. but allowing us to get good quality data that will help us make decisions as we move forward. one other thing, companies that may not want to participate will have the option to opt out , if they don't feel like this kind of a program will work for them. anyway, i just want to say i am very much appreciative of the gentleman from delaware and the chairman from new jersey for all the effort they've put into this bill and i hope that our colleagues, after seeing the great support that we had in the committee, will support this bill today. i yield back. the speaker pro tempore: the gentleman yields back the balance of his time. the gentleman from new jersey is recognized. mr. garrett: i thank you. i believe the gentleman from delaware has already yielded back so at this point i would

just like to again thank the gentleman from delaware for his work, the gentleman from wisconsin for his leadership on this issue, and also to -- on his page, i saw written in a large number was the magic number 57-0. i hope that does sound -- send sounding message over to -- send a resounding message over to the other body, to the senate, to do as they have not been doing for the last 14 months which is to take up some of these good job creation bills, a bill that helps promote jobs and small businesses in this country and with that i yield back the balance of my time. the speaker pro tempore: the gentleman yields back the balance of his time. the question is, will the house suspend the rules and pass the bill, h.r. 3448, as amended. those in favor say aye. those opposed, no. . in the opinion of the chair, 2/3 having responded in the affirmative, the rules are suspended -- the gentleman from delaware. mr. carney: 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 otion will be postponed. for what purpose does the gentleman from georgia seek recognition? mr. woodall: mr. speaker, i send to the desk a privileged report from the committee on

rules for filing under the rule. the clerk: report to accompany house resolution 478, resolution providing for consideration of the bill senate 540, to designate the air route traffic control center located in new hampshire as the patricia clark boston air route traffic control center, and for other purposes. the speaker pro tempore: referred to the house calendar and ordered printed. for what purpose does the gentleman from georgia seek recognition? mr. woodall: mr. speaker, by the direction of the committee on rules, i call up house resolution 478 and ask for its immediate consideration. the speaker pro tempore: the clerk will report the title resolution. the clerk: house resolution 478 -- house calendar number 85, house resolution 478, resolved, that upon adoption of this resolution it shall be in order to consider in the house the bill senate 540, to designate the air route traffic control center located in nashwood, new hampshire, as the patricia clark boston air traffic control center.

all points of consideration are waived. an amendment consists of texts 1 through 3 of rules committee print 113-330 shall be considered as adopted. the amendment, as amended, shall be considered as read. all points of order against provisions until bill, as amended, are waived. the previous question shall be considered as ordered on the bill, as amended, and on any amendment thereto to final passage without any intervening motion except, one, one hour of debate equally divided and controlled by the majority leader or minority leader or their respected designees and, two, one motion to recommit with or without instructions. section 2, house resolution 475, as amended, in section 2 by striking february 13, 2014, and inserting february 12, 014.

the speaker pro tempore: the gentleman from georgia is recognized for one hour. mr. woodall: i yield the customary 30 minutes to my friend from new york, ms. slaughter, pending which i yield myself such time as i may consume. the speaker pro tempore: the gentleman is recognized. mr. woodall: also, mr. speaker, if during consideration of this resolution, all time is yielded for the purpose of debate only. i'd like to ask unanimous consent that all members may have five legislative days to revise and extend their remarks. the speaker pro tempore: without objection. mr. woodall: house resolution 478 provides for consideration of s. 540. he read it exactly as it is drafted in the title but we're here today to move a clean debt ceiling. i won't tell you, mr. speaker, i'm excited about being down here today. i'm excited to be carrying the rule because i believe this is the way the regular order ought to operate but i came here, as you did here, mr. speaker, as my colleagues did to try to move the needle, to try to move the needle on federal spending,

to try to move the needle from the borrowing from our children and grandchildren. we talk about raising taxes. in fact, so many folks in this chamber has signed a pledge saying i'll never raise taxes on the american people and i admire that sentiment. but mr. speaker, when we have a vote to raise the debt ceiling, debt that has to be paid, we are in effect raising taxes on the american taxpayer. now it's not a surprise anyone in this chamber, anyone that's looked at the budget, understands we don't have enough revenue to pay our bills. in fact, mr. speaker, i have the great pleasure of being on the republican study committee as chair of their budget and spending task force, i had an opportunity last year to offer the most conservative budget offered in this chamber. the most conservative budget offered in this chamber, and we had to continue borrowing money as far as the eye can see.

when rand paul was elected to the united states senate, among much fanfare, lots of conservatives across the country looked for rand paul for guidance. and rightfully so, he introduced the most conservative budget ever offered in washington abolishing agency after agency after agency. sentiments i happen to agree with wholeheartedly but know we don't have the votes to achieve. and even that budget required borrowing money from our children and our grandchildren for the next three years. so it's not a happy day that we are here, mr. speaker. the happy day, i would argue, was back in august of 2011. i was a young freshman member, mr. speaker. i remember it because it was the kind of vote that you ran for congress to take. we were here in the -- and the news commentators were back and forth. was it the right deal, was it the wrong deal?

john boehner and president barack obama engaged in the debate at the white house night after night after night and suddenly a deal was reached. now, as has been my experience in my three years in this chamber, mr. speaker, the term a deal has been reached, 100% of the time means what rob woodall wanted didn't happen. it's funny how it works out. i get one voice out of 435. when i send my speaker to vote with the president and with 100 senators, i didn't get what i wanted. what i did get in august of 2011, mr. speaker, was an agreement that if we raise the debt ceiling if we agreed to further encumber or children and grandchildren, and as those know the current laws of the books require us to do, we would take a step, a $2 trillion step to try to make sure that we didn't have to raise the debt ceiling again.

didn't contain what anybody thought was the 100% right plan, mr. speaker, but it was a proposal that we could come together around. not just we republicans, not just we, capitol hill, snot just we, the senate, but we, the elected representatives of the american people from the white house to the u.s. house to the united states senate. we've come 2 1/2 years, mr. speaker, and we've done some amazing things. i credit no budget no pay, last year, for example, mr. speaker, which attached an increase in the debt ceiling to a requirement we pass a budget out of this house and they pass a budget out of the senate while allowing us to come together to produce the first budget this institution has seen since i've been elected to congress. first one. not the first house-passed budget. we do that every year. it's our responsibility. of course window. but the first one with which we found agreement with the senate and received paptal signature. mr. speaker, the debt limit is

a constant reminder of the imbalance of america's taxing and spending. we have a spending problem in this nation. everyone in this chamber knows it. and the debt ceiling is an opportunity for us to come together and find solutions and try as hard as he might, mr. speaker, when the speaker of this united states house dug deep to try to find those answers, he could find none. not that there were no answers out there. of course there were. there were not answers out that that could receive approval of the body, approval of the senate, signature of the pltppt and i have to ask why. there is not a man or woman that will come into this chamber that know we have to take steps to address this problem, mr. speaker. and they don't know we have the ability to do it because we have done it before. not 100 years ago. not 50 years ago. but just three years ago with largely the same folks who are

here today. that's not what this it rule is bringing to the floor today. but what it is bringing to the floor is a clean debt ceiling resolution. this should be a day on which we are coming together around solutions to that longer term spending problem, but we find ourselves here today simply trying to bring america back from an economic brink the likes of which not a single member of this chamber wants america to see. with that i reserve the balance of my time. the speaker pro tempore: the gentleman's time is reserved. the gentlelady from new york. ms. slaughter: thank you, mr. speaker. i thank the gentleman for yielding me the customary 30 minutes, and i yield myself such time as i may consume. the speaker pro tempore: the gentlelady is recognized. ms. slaughter: mr. speaker, just a few weeks ago it appeared as though the crisis that had come to define this congress may be were coming to an end. in a rare show of bipartisanship, democrats in the senate and republicans in the house passed a budget compromise that set the spending levels for the next two years. as was clear at the time of its

passage, the bipartisan budget agreement authorized spending well beyond the current debt limit. despite that fact, 166 members of the majority voted to authorize the spending and to increase the nation's debt. at that time, a member of the majority declared that passing the legislation would be the responsible thing to do and indeed it was. now, today we're going to find out whether that moment of responsibility was an aberration or a sign of things to come. the majority has the simple choice today. we understand they don't have the votes to pass this, and the democrats, as they have been on so many things we tried to get to the floor, are more than willing to do our part for our country because that, mr. speaker, is why we were elected to come here. the majority has a choice today to act responsibly and pay the country's bills, which they voted for, some of them, or

trigger another economic panic by threatening default. for decades, up to about 2011, which was held up as a landmark year, no matter which party was in charge, congress always raised the debt ceiling without hezz take or pause. in the years -- hesitation or pause. in the years i've been here we didn't have to pay a ransom to do what its duty called for. but in recent years, the majority doubts the seriousness of this responsibility and dared the global financial system to punish them for their malfeasance. although we need no reminder, in 2011 the majority of this chamber demanded ransom in exchange for an increase in the debt ceiling. the self-inflicted wound that followed sparked the most volatile week for the financial markets since 2008 when we had the financial crisis and

resulted in the credit rating agency standard & poor's downgrading our nation's credit rating for the first time in history. and for what? some notion that they didn't have to meet their responsibility. in the years since, the majority's continued to play this dangerous game of political hostage taking that hurts our economy and even caused a 16-day government shutdown. and that shutdown, mr. speaker, let me remind the people of america, took $24 billion out of our economy for absolutely nothing. even when it's been clear that there's only one way out of a self-inflicted crisis, such as the government shutdown, the majority pursued an approach that can be summarized as only when we have tied ourselves in legislative knots, only when we

have thrown the economy into turmoil, only after we have frightened employers from hiring and giving global investors pause, we will do the right thing, as we are doing today. this irresponsible approach has predictably drawn the ire of the american people and dragged the approval ratings of the house of representatives to historic lows. now today i urge the majority leader to follow the lead of the democratic leadership, my colleagues and me and do the right thing first and try to do the right thing first instead of last. so i urge my colleagues to vote yes on today's rule and that by itself is wonderful for me to do. feels good. and the underlying legislation so we can honor the commitments this congress has made and protect the full faith and credit of the united states. we are charged to do no less. i reserve the balance of my

time. the speaker pro tempore: the gentlelady's time is reserved. the gentleman from georgia. mr. woodall: pardon me, mr. speaker. i'd ask my friend from new york if she has any speakers remaining. ms. slaughter: mr. speaker, i have no requests for time. mr. woodall: i am prepared to close. ms. slaughter: all right. let me do that. the speaker pro tempore: the gentleman from georgia reserves. the gentlelady from new york is recognized. ms. slaughter: mr. speaker, as i've said, the question before us today is a simple one. are we going to pay the country's bills or will the united states become a deadbeat nation? it's not a question of increasing the nation's spending. the question was answered when the 166 members of the majority voted to spend beyond the nation's debt ceiling by passing the bipartisan budget agreement just a few weeks ago. today, as real americans do, and we should follow, they pay their debts. so when this is coming due, we hope after today we will be able to pay ours. for our part, my democrat

colleagues and i are ready to do the right thing and have been for some time. by increasing our nation's debt ceiling and protecting the full faith and credit of the united states of america, and i urge my colleagues to vote yes on today's rule and the underlie legislation -- underlying legislation and i yield back the balance of my time. the speaker pro tempore: the gentlelady yields back the balance of her time. the gentleman from georgia. mr. woodall: thank you, mr. speaker. i yield myself such time as i may consume. the speaker pro tempore: the gentleman is recognized. mr. woodall: i'm one of those members the gentlelady from new york referenced, one of those members who voted in favor of an appropriations bill that funds the government for this year. in fact, i voted for the house-passed budget, the republican study committee budget, and each and every year that i've been in this institution. and what is unique about those votes, mr. speaker, is they absolutely understand that we're going to have to spend money that we don't have. but they take steps to make the problem better instead of worse. i want to take issue with what my friend from new york said about a raising of the debt ceiling with absolutely no

strings attached as being the responsible thing to do. absolutely not. it's the worst case scenario. now, i'm going to have colleagues on the floor today, mr. speaker, who are peterified of what happens if we don't do this today. they are peterified that even though we know we can come together and find a solution forward, find a solution that makes the problem better instead of worse, they are petified that they do not have a willing partner with the president or with the senate so unless they vote to pass this bill today, america faces default and that is an awful box, an awful box that my frebleds have painted. i want to read -- that my friends have painted. i want to read a few quotes, mr. speaker. i think words matter. this is in 2006, as a young

senator barack obama faced a debt limit increase in the united states senate and he said this, and i just want to point out, because my friend from new york talked about the obviousness of this vote, how clearly this is the right thing to do, just to raise the debt ceiling, to whatever amount folks would like. here's what senator barack obama said in 2006. he said, the fact that we are even here today to debate raising america's debt limit is a sign of leadership failure. leadership means the buck stops here. instead washington is shifting the burdens of bad choices today onto the backs of -- onto the backs of our children and grandchildren. then senator barack obama goes on, mr. speaker, he said, america has a debt problem and a failure of leadership. america deserves better. therefore i intend to oppose

this effort to increase america's debt limit. i don't have to say it very often, mr. speaker, but when the president's right, he's right. this was an opportunity to come together and one that we searched for. searched for. there is not a man or woman in this town who wants to find a path forward more than our speaker, john boehner, does. there's no one who has sweated to find that opportunity more than our speaker has. yet without a willing partner in the white house or the senate, it can't happen. same year, mr. speaker, 2006, then senator joe biden says this. the president's budget plans will bring our debt to $11.8 trillion at the end of the next five years. this is a record of utter

disregard for our nation's financial future. $11.8 trillion is what joe biden was concerned about. that number reached $16 trillion within that same time period. he goes on. it is a record of indifference to the price our children and grandchildren will pay to redeem our debt when it comes due. history will not judge this record kindly. my vote against the debt limit increase cannot change the fact that we have incurred this debt already and will no doubt incur more. it is a statement that i refuse to be associated with, the policies that brought us to this point. mr. speaker, 2010, then chairman of the joint chiefs of staff, admiral mike mullin, said this. our national debt is our biggest national security threat. not terrorism, not al qaeda,

not a rogue nation, but our debt. mr. speaker, it's hard, it's hard to deal with our debt. if it was easy we wouldn't have the debt to begin with. it's hard, but i have seen us come together to fix it before. $2 trillion worth of difference, we came together to ake three years ago, not even. and yet today we find ourselves unable to find that path. mr. speaker, with the indulgence of my friend from new york, i very much appreciate it, i'd like to yield two minutes to the gentleman from texas, and i thank my friend from new york. the speaker pro tempore: the gentleman from texas is recognized for two minutes. >> i want to thank my friend on the majority side and my friend on the minority side for allowing me this unusual procedure. i do rise in support of the rule. i'm going to vote for the rule. but, mr. speaker, i am going to oppose the underlying bill on the debt ceiling. i've brought some material that have been prepared by the

congressional research service, with materials that are provided by the office of management and budget. mr. barton: they show in the fiscal year that we're now engaged, mandatory spending is 62% of the total budget and interest on the debt is over 6%. those two combined are 2/3 of all total spending. is mandatory and interest on the debt. it's not going to get any easier, mr. speaker, to solve this problem by passing so-called clean debt ceilings that don't address the underlying problem. and i understand the problems governing on the majority side and i understand the issues with the presidency and the senate being controlled by the democrats. i understand that. but i couldn't walk into a bank in texas today and say, i owe you $300,000 right now, but i

want to borrow another $200,000 . they would want to know what plan i had to repay the money i'd already borrowed and they would want to know how giving me another $200,000 would actually be the appropriate thing to do. what we're doing on the underlying bill, mr. speaker, with this so-called clean debt ceiling is simply saying, we want to borrow -- i'm not sure how much it is, probably $600 billion or $700 billion, where we already owe $17 trillion. we have no plan to repay the money we've already borrowed and certainly no plan to repay the money we're going to borrow. so, my comment today is, this congress should be addressing this problem in a bipartisan fashion today, we'll be back here in march of next year, we'll have the same debate, so i will be voting no later this evening. i do think my good friend from

georgia and my good friend from new york -- thank my good friend from georgia and my good friend from new york for allowing me to speak. with that i yield back to the gentleman. mr. woodall: i thank the gentleman and i again thank the gentlelady from new york as well. mr. speaker, we don't have these opportunities very often. i would posit to my colleagues that if really, if really the right answer is to pass clean debt ceilings, whenever the debt needs to be increased, i would wonder why it is we just don't repeal the debt ceiling altogether. if this isn't a moment for us to come together, if this isn't a moment for us to do those things that have to be done, if this isn't a moment that focuses like a laser the american people on what the consequences are of the decisions we make today, i don't know what would be. this is our best opportunity. and i could not be more grateful to my friends on the other side of the aisle, mr. speaker, for coming together to make some of those things possible. in fact, that great day in

august of 2011 that i talk about, that wasn't possible with republican votes. turning the dial on spending, the tune of $2 trillion, that wasn't possible with just republican votes. that was a bipartisan effort. that was a collaborative effort that makes a difference for our children and our grandchildren and it's one of which i hope we are both proud. the men and women who are going document to the floor of the house today, mr. speaker, to cast their vote are all going to be men and women who are deeply concerned about the future of this country. now, some of those men and women are going to look into their hearts and they're going to look at what default would mean to the nation, they're going to believe earnestly that because we cannot find a partner in the senate or the white house to negotiate on solving the problem, that the only step left to take is either default or not. and with a heavy heart, they're

going to vote to raise the debt ceiling. there are other men and women in this body, mr. speaker, who are going to come to the floor today for this vote and they are going to say, default is a terrible, terrible, terrible, even threat, to make. but if we do not find a way to curb the growth of federal spending, default is not a question of if, it is a question of when. it is a question of when. there is not a budget in washington, d.c., that stops the borrowing next year. or two years from now. or even 10 years from now. there's not one. and the most conservative budgets we have don't have enough votes to pass. if not today, when? now, i think the votes have been counted. the decisions have been made, mr. speaker. folks have been grappling with this issue and -- in their

hearts and with their constituents. but, mr. speaker, i plead with this play that role in debate. so that when this decision cronlts us again, not if, -- confronts us again, not if, but when, we take advantage of that, to do the hard things that must be done. i say to my friends on the other side of the aisle, and i know i speak for a large plurality of our members on this side of the aisle, challenge me to do those things that are hard. give me that vote to take, that so enrages the right flank that i get sent home in the next primary but i had a chance to do something that mattered while i was here. folks didn't leave their families to come and just cast a ballot to keep things going on the way they're going on, mr. speaker. they came on both sides of the

aisle to make a difference. the path that we are on with spending and revenue is a path that is unsustainable to the tune of $17.3 trillion today and a path that is unsustainable to the tune of hundreds of trillions of dollars tomorrow. the economic demise of this country on that path is not if but when. but we have the ability right here in this chamber to make that difference. we have the ability right here in this chamber to look our children and our grandchildren in the eye and say, when i had that voting carder to for that brief time -- card for that brief time, i did everything i did to make a difference. we've been on a streak here, mr. speaker, of coming together in surprising ways to achieve things that i thought could not be done. surprising ways to achieve those things that i thought could not be done.

i hope we make deficit reduction in this next budget cycle, mr. speaker. that same bipartisan priority. i believe we can surprise even ourselves with the amount that we can accomplish. with that, mr. speaker, i yield back the balance of my time and move the previous question. the speaker pro tempore: without objection, the previous question is ordered. the question is on adoption of the resolution. those in favor say aye. those opposed, no. the ayes have it. the resolution is agreed to and, without objection, a motion to reconsider is laid pon the table.

for what purpose does the gentleman from michigan, mr. camp, seek recognition? mr. camp: pursuant to house resolution 478, i call up s. 540 and ask for its immediate consideration. the speaker pro tempore: the clerk will report the title of the bill. the clerk: senate 540, a bill to designate the air traffic control center in nashua, new patricia clarkhe boston air route traffic control center. sproim the amendment is considered read. the gentleman from michigan, mr. camp, and the gentleman, mr. crowley, will each control 30 minutes. the chair recognizes the gentleman from michigan. mr. camp: i ask unanimous consent that all members have

five legislative days to revise and extend their remarks and include extraneous material on s. 540. and mr. speaker, i yield myself such time as i may consume. the speaker pro tempore: the gentleman is recognized. mr. camp: the last time i stood on the floor to talk about a clean debt limit increase, i did so to prove we could do better. it was an effort to implore my democrat colleagues in the house and senate to heed the warnings of the president's own fiscal commission, also known as the simpson-bowles commission, which clearly noted how our economy and hardworking taxpayers would suffer under the mountain of debt washington was racking up. my position sun changed. i remain as committed as ever to grappling with our debt, to making the tough decisions to reform, improve, strengthen, and protect our entitlement programs and most importantly, getting this economy back on track. so hardworking taxpayers start

seing their pay-go up and those in need of a job can find one. in fact, that work is under way at the ways and means committee where we've posted for public comment bipartisan proposals to reform medicare and social security so that they're viable for seniors and taxpayers, not only today but well into the future. regrettably, over the last three years, democrats have hardened their position. the president, senate democrats and house democrats, will not even entertain a discussion, let alone a negotiation over what reforms we can make along with a debt limit increase. they've become unyielding. democrats are totally adamant, extend the debt limit or default. that's the position of today's democrat party. don't negotiate, don't reach out across the aisle, ignore the past which clearly shows the debt limit typically passes with other reforms. mr. speaker, i remember serving when bill clinton was president. those were different times. despite our different opinions,

we were able to find common solutions for the american people. we balanced the budget, reformed our nation's welfare laws and helped break the cycle of dependency by placing an emphasis on work. today, democrats openly cheer that their law will lead to less work. i'm disappointed the democrats have walked away from the table. i'm disappointed we are not engaged in a more serious debate today. but for as disappointed as i am, i cannot in good conscience let democrat's refusal to engage lead to a default. for that reason and that reason alone, i will vote yes today. but today's legislation is hardly a solution to our looming debt crisis. that's why the ways and means committee will continue to carefully review an advanced policy to not only reform our entitlement programs providing greater protection for seniors and greater savings for hardworking taxpayers, but also policies to create a stronger economy, more jobs and higher wages for workers.

it's only through a combination of such policies that we can truly solve the problem. i reserve the balance of my time. the speaker pro tempore: the gentleman from new york. mr. crowley: i yield myself such time as i may consume. the speaker pro tempore: the gentleman is recognized. mr. crowley: i thank the gentleman for his responsible commitment to vote for this bill today. i wish i could say that a majority of his party would be responsible for -- and vote for this bill today but i cannot. seems ately, the -- it the republican party is shedding part of its tea party ideology and holding the nation hostage to meet the wants of a select few. i would like to explain what the house is and is not voting on today. we are voting to ensure that our country can pay the bills we have already incurred. not new bills.

old bills. so that it's checks can continue to be mailed. so that doctors serving medicare patients will be reimbursed for their services. so that veterans' pensions and compensation will be paid out. and so income tax refund checks will continue to be processed and paid out. and what we are not voting for, what we are not voting for, we are not voting for a bill to spend money. my republican colleagues will argue that this bill allows the federal government to continue to borrow and therefore spend more money. they say tax revenues come in and even more goes out in spending for government services and programs. services and programs that we all agree benefit our mutual constituents. so what is the alternative the republicans would offer instead? my republican colleagues would

offer default because not supporting this bill would mean you support default. and defaulting on our nation's debt. default would mean taxpayer dollars would still come into the government, we could still cleekt -- the i.r.s. would still collect taxes but no money would go out. there would be no services or programs to benefit our constituents. they'd be shut down. if you all remember how angry the country was during the republican shutdown of our government when military death benefits were not paid? that would only be magnified under a default led by the republican side of the aisle. not only would there be no death benefits, there would be no veterans' benefits at all, no money for hospitals, doctors and nurses and the default wouldn't just affect our military and veterans. there would be no funds for food inspectors, no pell grants, no air traffic controllers, or any

other government service because of default. let's be clear. if you like the republican-engineered shutdown of our government, you'll love the default the republicans who would vote no today would perpetuate on the american public. this is a debt that the republican caucus helped create. you own a portion of this debt. the american people are watching this vote. they're confounded once again that the majority of the majority will vote to default. the overwhelming majority of the minority will vote not to default. i ask the american people, which party is the responsible party? the answer is clear. the democratic party will be responsible today. we will vote overwhelmingly for this bill not to default on our nation's debt, not to raise

interest rates on our constituents, not to raise the cost of money for the government to borrow either. with that, i will retain the balance of my time. the speaker pro tempore: the gentleman's time is reserved. the gentleman from michigan. mr. camp: i reserve. the speaker pro tempore: the gentleman from new york. mr. draw lee: i would yield as uch time as the -- mr. crowley: i yield such time as the gentleman, mr. neam, may - mr. neal my consume. mr. neal: i listened earlier about the gentleman speaking about debt from the years out. that's nothing to do with the argument being applied on this floor. this is about the basic arithmetic of the credit card that arrives at a family's doorstep for a variety of costs. this is about paying for the war in iraq which i was opposed to but i believe we still have an

obligation to pay for, including the one million new veterans that were created that are currently strirninge v.a. system. in addition, this is a vote about paying for the tax cuts in 1 and 203 that continued through 2010 based on the mistaken notion, the theology that was applied suggesting that in fact tax cuts pay for themselves. this is about a turn around of a projected surplus of $5 trillion that instead became ongoing deficits and debt noted for the ill-conceived policies that many of our friends on the other side embraced. under the hubris of suggesting that you can have it all. when else in american history, when else have we embraced the idea enunciated not long ago by the former majority leader of the republican party who

suggested that it was patriotic in a time of war to cut taxes. lincoln and roosevelt certainly didn't embrace that position. you can't have it all. what was desirable by the republican party during those years was essentially this -- they were going to score political points on the issue of the debt ceiling. they were going to hold the debt ceiling hostage for isolated issues that placated a minority of the majority. now i know most of the republicans who have come to this floor today and i want to tell you, my knowledge of them is they're very responsible when it comes to budge tiering but they're -- to budgeteering, but they're caught by the minority of their majority who direct where these decisions go. the result of our last standoff

over the debt ceiling, our credit was downgraded. look at the strength of the american dollar today. why is it in that position? i've never been anywhere where the world doesn't say, we honor the american dollar. the point that i offered a moment ago is the following. they were prepared to default on that debt for the purpose of isolated, strident political views outside of the mainstream. job creation? it was held hostage. fewer jobs were created than at any time since the great depression. that is not an opinion, that's a fact. now this behavior was unacceptable and the american people said so. you pay for what you spend. raising the debt ceiling ensures that we will not be a deadbeat nation in the eyes of the world, nor in the eyes of our own citizenry. not long ago, we passed an omnibus spending bill, incidentally, because it will break down in the regular order here, the idea that we used to

spend according to the 12 to 13 appropriation bills that guided us every year, known as regular order, where members had a chance to amend spending bills in committee and then on the floor, i must tell you, that's a quaint reservoir of thought these days. now we wrap it all up and the same people that could say, well i'm going to pass the omnibus spending bill to take care of favored spending and then say, i'm not going to vote to raise the debt ceiling, the argument is anachronistic. i support this measure, having voted against the bush tax cuts, having voted against the war in iraq, having voted against most of the policies that got us into this. but this is about the full faith and credit of the united states and it should be embraced by the entirele boddy. i yield back my time. the speaker pro tempore: the gentleman from michigan. mr. camp: i reserve. the speaker pro tempore: the gentleman from new york. mr. crowley: i'm pleased to yield one minute to the gentlelady, the leader of the

democratic caucus in the house, nancy pelosi. the speaker pro tempore: the gentlelady is recognized. ms. pelosi: i thank the gentleman for yielding, i thank him for his leadership on this important issue, to him, to mr. levin and the member os they have ways and means committee, thank you for making clear what the stakes are in this vote on the floor today. mr. speaker, the 14th amendment of our constitution declares, and i quote, the validity of the public debt of the united states authorized by law shall not be questioned. that -- unquote. that has always tpwheb -- been the standard upheld and advocated by house democrats. of my conversations with speaker boehner, i have conveyed the unwavering support of the house democratic caucus for a clean bill to lift the debt ceiling. that means no goodies for one side or the other. there's nothing you could add to

it that would say, ok, since it's something i like, i dent mind if it isn't clean -- i don't mind if it isn't clean. i said even if you added something i cared about a grea deal, that our caucus cared about a great deal that does not make it right. because the full faith and credit should be unquestioned and it is not negotiable. i thank the speaker for giving us this opportunity. this is really important. to bring legislation to the floor that is consistent with the intent of the constitution and with the best interests of the american people. well, i'll tell you this, we have heard from all kinds of leaders of finance, from the boardroom, to the kitchen table. the boardroom tells us, the conference table then writes to us and says, we urge you to again take the necessary steps to preserve our nation's financial standing in the world and help ensure that the

american recovery continues in its current path toward restored prosperity by the uncertainty as to whether or not we will incur an historic default in raising the debt ceiling. i wish to submit this full letter to the record with the cigna tores who -- with the signators who represent the captains of finance and industry in our country. but more important than that, as important as that is, our global standing in the world. more important to each and every person in our country, is what mr. neal spelled out. what this means to you. . if you're a consumer with a credit card, if we did not take this action today, interest rates could skyrocket, making it harder for families to get loans, for small businesses to invest, spend and hire. again, on your kitchen table, as you pay the bills each

month, you would have higher interest rates for your mortgage, your car payments, your student loans and your credit card bills. higher interest rates once again on small business loans that are useed to -- that are used to pay employees or expand business. significant blows would come to 401-k's as a result of the stock market reaction to our not lifting the debt ceiling. credit markets could freeze the value of the dollar -- could freeze, the value of the dollar would be negatively impacted. so there's a great deal at stake in this vote today. and, again, at the time when we have to lift the debt ceiling, it is appropriate to have a discussion of spending priorities, of budgets that should be a statement of our values. but there should be no question that those debates would be something that would not just be a debate, but be a barrier to lifting the debt ceiling.

that's why i'm grateful to the speaker and the republican leadership for giving this house this opportunity to act in a way that is consistent with the constitution. when this measure passes today, congress will state unequivalentically that the full faith and credit of the united states of america is not in doubt. i thank my democratic colleagues for never waivering from this position and standing firm on behalf of all americans and i thank, once again, the speaker for giving us this opportunity to associate ourselves and support the constitution and the american people. with that, mr. speaker, i yield back the balance of my time. the speaker pro tempore: the gentlelady yields back the balance of her time. without objection, the material referenced by the gentlelady will be included -- will be included in the record. the gentleman from michigan. the gentleman is recognized. >> the budget control act was signed into law on august 2.

on august 5, standard & poors downgraded the u.s. credit rating. mr. camp: and did so, and i quote, did so, and i quote, the doubt downgrade reflects you are opinion -- the downgrade reflects our opinion that the fiscal consolidation plan that congress and the administration recently agreed to falls short of what in our view would be necessary to stabilize the government's median term debt dynamics. there have been some speakers who have come to this floor that said we were downgraded because of brinksmanship, we were downgraded because there were those of us who wanted to see some approach to fiscal responsibility in our debt limit negotiations. clearly that's revisionist history and the facts bear out. standard & poors's own quote was because we didn't go far enough. not because we tried to address long-term term and debt. so this reinforces my point.

we can't be satisfied with just increasing the debt limit. i realize that is where we are today and as i've said, i will vote for this legislation. but as another speaker has said, they have viewed this as non-negotiable. and what we really need to do is reach across the aisle and work together to find long-term solutions to both our medium term and long-term debt obligations so that these programs, like medicare and social security, these valuable programs that serve many of our citizens are not only viable today but well into the future. i reserve. the speaker pro tempore: the gentleman reserves the balance of his time. the gentleman from new york. mr. crowley: i inquire the amount of time left on both sides. the chair: the gentleman from new york has -- the speaker pro tempore: the gentleman from new york has 25 minutes remaining. the gentleman from michigan has 25 1/2 minutes remaining. mr. crowley: thank you. i yield two minutes to the gentleman from michigan and the ranking member on the ways and means committee, mr. levin. the speaker pro tempore: the gentleman from michigan, mr. levin, is recognized for two minutes. without objection.

mr. levin: well, we've been adamant about a clear, clean debt ceiling vote. and now it's happening. it should have happened the last time. and because of the republican position, a high price was paid. jobs were lost, 120,000. the stock market plunged nearly 20%. economic growth was slowed. significantly. so this time around we're going to do the right thing. the gentleman from michigan, my colleague, the chairman of the committee, talked about working together and i want to close by suggesting now with this vote in terms of the debt ceiling, we've cleared the deck. let us now take up the other

issues of major importance to the people of this country. and one of them is unemployment insurance. as we stand here today, isolated maybe by the walls around this chamber, but i hope not, 1.7 million people have lost every dime of their unemployment insurance, long-term unemployed. all right, we're clearing the decks. now let's pay attention to the business of the american people, in addition to full faith and credit. we should not be leaving here with 1.7 million americans out the cold because too many people in this institution haven't been willing to listen to their stories.

listen and act. i yield back. the speaker pro tempore: the gentleman yields back the balance of his time. the gentleman from michigan. mr. camp: i reserve. the speaker pro tempore: the gentleman reserves. the gentleman from new york. mr. crowley: at this time i yield three minutes to the gentleman from maryland, the minority whip, on the democratic side, mr. hoyer. the speaker pro tempore: the gentleman from maryland is recognized for three minutes. three minutes. mr. hoyer: i thank the speaker. and i thank the gentleman from new york and i thank the gentleman from michigan. let me start by saying, this issue ought not to be subject to a debate. america, the greatest land on the face of the earth, and one of the most economic -- economically successful countries in history, won't pay its bills.

i can't believe there's any american that thinks america should or would welch on that which it owes. that's not a very sophisticated argument. i can make a more sophisticated argument. but when it comes down to it, that's the issue. will america pay its bills? will it give confidence to the investor community? will it give confidence to the business community? will it give confidence to our own citizens? indeed, will we give confidence to the world? that the world's leader can manage its own affairs responsibly. i want to join leader pelosi in congratulating the speaker for bringing this bill to the floor. he brings it to the floor because he knows, as i've just said, there is no alternative for america but to pay its bills.

he brings it to the floor because he knows if he doesn't, the business community is going to think that the majority party in this house cannot manage the affairs of the united states of america in a responsible fashion. he brings it to the floor apparently with some doubts as to whether or not those who have elected him speaker will follow him in taking the responsible path. my presumption is, although i don't know, is that the gentleman who chairs the ways and means committee will vote for this. my presumption is mr. cantor, the majority leader, will vote for this. my presumption is that speaker boehner will vote for this. my presums is based upon the pact -- presumption is based on upon the fact that they've represented that there's not an alternative that's a responsible one. i doubt that there are many people on this floor who have

urged us to pursue a big deal more than i have. i voted against the last budget agreement otherwise known as ryan-murray because i thought it was too small and did not move us towards fiscal responsibility and sustainability in the magnitude that it should have. having said that, however, there is no alternative to pay the bills that we have incurred , that the house, the senate and the president on behalf of the american people have incurred. and because we are a great nation, we will certainly not welch on our debts. will the gentleman yield me three additional minutes? the speaker pro tempore: the gentleman is recognized for an additional three minutes. mr. hoyer: i thank the gentleman. the speaker pro tempore: the gentleman is recognized for an dditional three minutes. mr. hoyer: i knew he was going

to yield me three minutes. so we come to this time with not many people on the floor. although we have demagogued this issue in the past. we, both sides, let's be clear. on our side we said that the republicans cut revenues, therefore they were responsible for the debt. on their side they say democrats spent money and invested money and therefore they're responsible for the debt. the fact of the matter is, we were all responsible for the debt. the fact of the matter is, under the reagan administration, when i came to congress, we substantially increased the national debt and we could only do so with ronald reagan's signature. and then under george bush the first, we substantially increased the debt, we could only do so with george bush's signature.

and under bill clinton we brought the debt down for four years running, and we ran surpluses for the next four. and of course republicans were in the house and in charge for six years. so it was a team effort, if you will. and we had a budget surplus. and then in the second bush administration, we substantially increased the budget deficit. we had two wars that we paid for none. $1 trillion-plus in additional deficit. many trillions over time. and so, my friends, we come to the floor today to do the only responsible alternative available to us. but that does not mean that anybody who votes for this believes that it is not critically important for us to have america on a fiscally sustainable path. the business round table has urged us to pass this bill.

as leader pelosi quoted, the chamber of commerce said not to do so will put our country and our economy at risk. and yet i fear there are going to be apparently a significant amount of people who will come and vote no. vote no on paying america's bills. vote no on giving confidence to the international community that america is in fact able to manage its affairs. there ought to be no debate, as i said, when it comes to making sure we pay our bills on time. the bills congress has incurred. as i said, the business round able was quoted as saying, urgent action is required on the part of congress in order to prevent a default. in fact, he said, if we , all ed, every american

315 million-plus, would feel the negative effects. why would anybody vote against such a bill? one additional minute. is that possible? are you running out of time? ok. you're running out of time. so, 30 seconds. the speaker pro tempore: the gentleman is recognized for an additional 30 seconds. mr. hoyer: i will conclude because my friend is running out of time. this is not a partisan vote. and should not be viewed as such. republicans and democrats have voted to protect the american people, provide for the national defense and provide for the general welfare of our country, pursuant to our constitutional responsibilities. having done so, there is no responsible alternative but to pay our bills.

that's what this vote is about. let's show the courage, the wisdom, the common sense to do just that. vote yes. the speaker pro tempore: the gentleman from michigan. mr. camp: i yield myself such time as i may consume. the speaker pro tempore: the gentleman is recognized. mr. camp: i would just point outer to my friends on the other side -- out to my friends on the other side that in recent memory there have been seven instances where debt limits were part of other major pieces of legislation. for example, in the first bush administration there was a balanced budget in emergency deficit act. in the clinton administration there were reconciliations act, as well as the contract with america advancement act. in the obama administration there was stimulus, pay as you go, budget control act, so this has happened seven times. . in recent history. why can't it happen now? the difference is, you had both parties willing to come together

and negotiate major pieces of legislation that would help to address the short-term, medium, and long-term drivers of our debt. what we have now is a very open admission that it's absolutely nonnegotiable. that this is a straight increase in debt limit without any of these legislations even though this happened seven times in the past. i would just say that debt limit increases are often parts of larger pieces of legislation and it would not be unusual and i think it's a sad day when the other side has a take it or leave it approach and is unwilling to come together with the republicans to find a way to bring other legislation to the floor that will help address the drivers of our debt. i reserve. the speaker pro tempore: the gentleman's time has reserved this egentleman from new york. mr. crowley: i yield two minutes to the ranking member of the financial services committee,

ms. waters. the speaker pro tempore: the gentlelady is recognized for two minutes. ms. waters: thank you, mr. speaker. once again, it's the house democrats required to take important action to protect our nation's well being. today, most house republicans will once again refuse to stand behind the full faith and credit of the united states, threatening an economic catastrophe for all americans. when republicans pushed our nation to the brink of default last year, refusing to increase the debt limit, businesses large and smalligan to cut back by slowing spending and hiring. consumer confidence fell faster than at any other time since the financial crisis in 2008. potential home buyers didn't buy homes. but despite these warnings, house republicans still want to push us to default and the consequences would be disastrous. the value of our 401k's and iras would plummet, significantly

hurting those saving for retirement. for consumers, a default would make credit cards, mortgages, student, and automobile loans more expensive. default would lead to a u.s. credit rating downgrade, making it harder for businesses to hire new employees and our cities and states to finance schools and hospitals, roads and bridges. mr. speaker, the american people cannot afford another round of republican recklessness. everyone from wall street c.e.o.'s to conservative economists agree, we need to honor our debt. i and my democratic colleagues will once again do what is necessary. i urge the republicans to put americans before ideology and support this legislation to raise the debt ceiling. i yield back. the speaker pro tempore: the gentleman from michigan. mr. camp: i reserve. the speaker pro tempore: the gentleman from new york. mr. crowley: i yield two minutes to the gentleman from california, mr. honda. the speaker pro tempore: the gentleman is recognized for two minutes.

mr. honda: i want to thank my friend for yielding. mr. speaker, today u.s. congress is doing its job. five days after forcing the treasury to resort to extraordinary measures to finance our government and three legislative days before an unprecedented default. this marks the fourth time in the last three years we have been pushed right to the brink of default. everyone outside of this chamber knows we could have and should have lifted the debt ceiling long before we arrived at this point. i'm glad to see that once again we've been able to do our most basic job. but we need to stop playing these political games with our economy, our stability, and our reputation. we should not be forced to wonder year after year if we're going to be able to decide to meet our obligations. we should guarantee that the only time we debate spending is during spending debates.

i would ask my colleagues to help me reform this process and install a permanent fix to end the brinksmanship surrounding the debt limit. that's why i introduced two bills that allow the debt limit to be raised unless a supermajority of congress votes to block them. this would shift the role of congress to kiss approving debt ceiling increases instead of being forced to approve them. my approach has been introduced in the other chamber by a number of senators and has been endorsed by a growing numb of economists and outside thought leaders. today i urge my colleagues to vote yes to lift the debt limit with me today but i also ask my colleagues to join me in ursuing permanent, necessary changes for tomorrow so we can eliminate this hostage taking. i yield back. the speaker pro tempore: the gentleman from michigan reserves. the gentleman from new york.

mr. crowley: i yield two minutes to the gentlelady from texas, ms. sheila jackson lee. the speaker pro tempore: the gentlelady is recognized for two minutes. ms. jackson lee: i thank the gentleman very much. as i have listened to debate on the floor of ethe house, i have seen that members are coming from all regions of the united states which means that in fact this will be impacting all of our constituents. i would hope republicans would join the democrats who will vote by and large in almost near 100% to do what the federal reserve chairman, former chairman, ben bernanke said, to avoid a government shutdown and perhaps even more so, a failure to raise the debt limit could have serious consequences for the financial market and for the economy. but more importantly, it will cost student loans much more to ur young aspirants who are attempting to develop an expertise to contribute to this society. it could increase payments by

$2,000 for 531,327 texas students who rely on loans to go to college. mr. speaker, i don't want to do that. higher interest rates for mortgages and auto loans and student loans and credit cards. mr. speaker, i don't want to do that. families -- families re' tirmente savings and 401k's dropping as the stock market plummets, reminding us of four years ago when we had one of the worst plummets we have experienced in the last administration. 3.4 million veterans not receiving disability. i know we dent want to do that 10 million americans not receiving their social security check on time in just the first week. we cannot do that. drug reimbursements under medicare stopping and doctors and hospitals not getting paid. i know members of congress will not and do not want to do that. so a clean debt ceiling is the only direction. but we have some other options. we can do this in a bipartisan manner. we can have the democrats standing tall as they have

advocated for a clean debt ceiling but we can join with our partners and we can acknowledge the fact that the government is not broke. we can invest in infrastructure. we can as my colleague has said, congressman levin, we can extend the unemployment insurance and provide for education and provide for research and development, we can build this country, it's time now to vote for a clean debt ceiling and do it together so we can nst in america. i yield back. the speaker pro tempore: the gentleman from michigan. mr. camp: i reserve. the speaker pro tempore: the gentleman from new york. mr. crowley: i appreciate my colleagues, all my colleagues for coming down to the floor this afternoon to speak in favor of this proposed bill. i think it's note worthy to point out that only the gentleman from michigan has come down to speak on behalf of the majority today and abley, i should say. he's voting for this bill and i

appreciate his support. i notice that no one took time in opposition on the other side of the aisle. maybe they don't care as much about this issue as we thought they did. but the reality is, every vote against this bill is a vote for default. now our republican colleagues have an answer for that. they have a plan. they intend to default someday so they have a plan. it's a bill they call the full faith and credit act. we call it the pay china first act. it says in the event of a default, we will pay those people who own our bonds, we will pay foreign governments first and everyone else gets put down to the bottom of the barrel. but they have a plan. republicans have a plan in the case that we default. let me just say, mr. speaker, i think it is totally irresponsible to even have had a debate on this floor on a bill that would determine the payments of our debt in lieu of default. i think it's irresponsible. the fact that we've had these

manmade brinksmanships is irresponsible. once again the republican party and their caucus is showing that they're not responsible enough to be ruling and to be governing here in the house of representatives. mr. speaker, with that, i yield back the balance of our time. the speaker pro tempore: the gentleman yields back. the gentleman from mr. -- from michigan. mr. camp: i yield myself such time as i may consume. the speaker pro tempore: the gentleman is recognized. mr. camp: we have heard a lot of talk about how the nation must pay its bills but one major reason we're in this position is an unpaid-for trillion dollar stimulus bill that did not increase economic growth, did not create jobs, and simpley added to our debt. i know there are some on the other side who want to keep on spending no matter what the impact is on our credit rating. and while i believe that we must increase our debt limit, i'm clearly not satisfied that there

are no provisions that would help us address the long-term drivers of this debt. but i will say that it's disappointing that the democrats have walked away from the table. it's disappointing that we are not engaged in a more serious debate today a debate about policy and how we rein in what really has become runaway debt. but as i said, for as disappointed as i am in that, i cannot in good conscience let the democrats re-- democrats' refusal to engage lead to a default so i will vote yes on this legislation today. but it's hardly a solution to our looming debt crisis. that's why the ways and means committee will continue to move forward on reforming medicare and social security as we have with bipartisan proposals that are in legislative form published for the public to view on our website. and we'll move forward on tax reform.

one that will help grow our economy, create jobs, and help address our debt crisis by a stronger, more vibrant economy that will provide opportunity for individuals to get work, increase their wages, and provide for themselves and their families. i hoach that democrats will join me in these efforts. -- i hope that democrats will join me in these efforts. i believe it's only through a combination of those policies that can we really get to the true solutions to this very significant problem facing our country. so while this is a short-term solution to prevent what i think is essential that we do prevent, a default, it's not enough. and as i said, there's so much more to do. with that, i yield back the balance of my time. the speaker pro tempore: the gentleman yields back. all time for debate has expired. pursuant to house resolution 478, the previous question is ordered on the bill as amened. the question is on third reading

of the bill. those in favor say aye. those opposed, no. ayes have it. third reading. the clerk: an act to designate the air route traffic control center located in nashua, new hampshire, as the patricia clark boston air traffic control center. the speaker pro tempore: the question is on passage of the bill. those in favor say aye. those opposed, no. the ayes have it. the bill is passed. without objection, the motion to reconsider -- the gentleman from georgia. >> i ask for the yeas and nays. the speaker pro tempore: those favoring a vote by the yeas and nays will rise. a sufficient number having risen, the yeas and nays are ordered. pursuant to clause 8 of rule 20, this 15-minute vote on passage of s. 540 will be followed by a five-minute vote on a motion to suspend the rules on h.r. 3448. 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: the eas are 221, the nays are 201, the bill is passed. without objection, the motion to reconsider is laid on the table. the unfinished business is vote on the motion of the the gentleman from new jersey to suspend the rules and pass h.r. 3448 on which the yeas and nays are ordered. the clerk: h.r. 34 48 a bill to amend the securities exchange of 1934 allowing certain emerging growth companies to increase the sizes of their stock. the speaker pro tempore: 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.]

is

the speaker pro tempore: on this vote the yeas are 412. the nays are four. 2/3 having responded in the affirmative, the rules are suspended, the bill is passed and without objection the motion to reconsider is laid on the table.

the unfinished business is the question on suspending the rules and passing h.r. 3578, as amended, which the clerk will report by title. the clerk: union calendar number 253, h.r. 3578, a bill to ensure that any new or revised requirement providing for the screening, testing or treatment of an airman or an air traffic controller for sleep disorder is adopted pursuant to a rulemaking proceeding, and for other purposes. the speaker pro tempore: the question is will the house suspend the rules and pass the bill, as amended.

so many as are in favor say aye. those opposed, no. in the opinion of the chair, 2/3 having responded in the affirmative, the rules are suspended, the bill is passed, and without objection the motion to reconsider is laid on the table. without objection, the title is amended. pursuant to clause 8 of rule 20, the unfinished business is the question on agreeing to the speaker's approval of the journal, which the chair will put de novo. the question is on agreeing to the speaker's approval of the journal. those in favor say aye. those opposed, no. in the opinion of the chair, the ayes have it. and the journal stands pproved. for what purpose does the gentleman from mississippi seek recognition? >> mr. speaker, i ask unanimous consent that the committee on house administration be

discharged from further consideration of senate joint resolution 28 and ask for its immediate consideration in the house. the speaker pro tempore: the clerk will report the title of the joint resolution. the clerk: senate joint resolution 28, joint resolution providing for the appointment of john fahey as the board of regents of the smithsonian institution. the speaker pro tempore: is there objection of the consideration of the joint resolution? without objection, the joint resolution is read a third time and passed and the motion to reconsider is laid on the table. for what purpose does the gentleman from mississippi seek recognition? >> mr. speaker, i ask unanimous consent that the committee on house administration be discharged from further consideration of senate joint resolution 29 and ask for its immediate consideration in the house. the speaker pro tempore: the clerk will report the title of the joint resolution. the clerk: senate joint

resolution 29, joint resolution providing for the appointment of riza moorey of the citizen of regent of the board of regents of the smithsonian institution. the speaker pro tempore: is there objection to the consideration of the joint resolution? without objection, the joint resolution is read a third time and passed and the motion to reconsider is laid on the table. for what purpose does the gentleman from texas seek recognition? mr. green: i ask unanimous consent to place in the congressional record that i was unable to be in washington on monday, february 10, 2014, for votes because of events in our district. if i had been here i would have voted as follows on passage of h.r. 2431, the national integrated drought information system re-authorization act, roll call number 55, i would have voted yes. on passage of h.res. 447, house resolution supporting the democratic and european aspirations of the people of ukraine and their right to choose their own future free of

intimidation and fear resolution, supporting roll call number 56, i would have yoted iowa. on approval of the journal, roll call number 57, i would have voted no. and i yield back my time. the speaker pro tempore: without objection, the gentleman's statement will appear in the record. for what purpose does the gentleman from mississippi seek recognition? mr. harper: mr. speaker, i ask unanimous consent that when the house adjourns today it adjourn to meet at 2:00 p.m. on friday, february 14, 2014. the speaker pro tempore: without objection, so ordered for what purpose does the gentleman from mississippi seek recognition? mr. harper: mr. speaker, i send to the desk a concurrent resolution and ask unanimous consent for its immediate consideration. the speaker pro tempore: the clerk will report the title of the concurrent resolution. the clerk: house concurrent resolution 81, concurrent resolution providing for a correction in the enrollment of senate 25. the speaker pro tempore: is there any objection to the consideration of the concurrent resolution?

without objection, the concurrent resolution is agreed to and the motion to reconsider is laid on the table. for what purpose does the gentleman from mississippi seek recognition? mr. harper: mr. speaker, i send to the desk a concurrent resolution and ask unanimous consent for its immediate consideration. the speaker pro tempore: the clerk will report the title of the concurrent resolution. the clerk: house concurrent resolution 82, providing a correction in the enrollment of senate 540. the speaker pro tempore: is there objection to the consideration of the concurrent resolution? without objection, the concurrent resolution is agreed to and the motion to reconsider s laid on the table. the chair lays before the house the following personal requests. the clerk: leave of absence requested for mr. defazio of oregon for today, february 11, until 56 p.m. mr. lewis of georgia for

february -- until 5:00 p.m. mr. lewis of georgia for february 10 through february 11. mr. rush of illinois for february 10 through february 11. the speaker pro tempore: without objection, the requests are granted. for what purpose does the gentlewoman from texas seek recognition? mr. granger: mr. speaker, i'd like to be removed as co-sponsor of 1762, the biennial budgeting and appropriations act. the speaker pro tempore: without objection, the request is granted. for what purpose does the gentleman from pennsylvania seek recognition? mr. thompson: mr. speaker, i ask unanimous consent to remove my name as a co-sponsor -- >> mr. speaker, i ask unanimous consent to remove my name as co-sponsor from house resolution 470. the speaker pro tempore: without objection, the request is granted. the chair will now entertain requests for one-minute speeches. for what purpose does the gentleman from pennsylvania seek recognition? >> mr. speaker, i rise to address the house for one minute. the speaker pro tempore: without objection, the gentleman is recognized for one inute.

>> mr. speaker, i rise today to recognize and congratulate the skaters and families, current and past, of the skating club in chestnut hill, pennsylvania, and the athletic association in st. catterin's, ontario. this weekend marks the 50th anniversary of the skating club athletic association hockey exchange. for five interrupted decades, these organizations have taken turns, hosting players and families for a weekend of festivities surrounding the youth hockey tournament. mr. meehan: it is understood to be the longest uninterrupted exchange of its type in international competition. mr. speaker, this tournament brings back special memories for me. as a youth i can recall the bus rides to canada and the warm hospitality of the families who welcomed my brothers and me into their homes.

it was and remains more than a hockey game. it represents the genuine affection american and canadians have for each other, expressed through the rich tradition of friendly competition and the great game of ice hockey. mr. speaker, the 50th anniversary of this very special engagement will be celebrated this weekend in philadelphia. i hope this wonderful tradition continues with similar enthusiasm for the children -- of the children who will compete. mr. speaker, i yield back. the speaker pro tempore: for do you seek does recognition? the gentlelady is recognized for one minute. >> mr. speaker, on friday, the people will be celebrating valuen tine's day, a day of romance to express gratitude. we look forward to our clock

late, candy and our cards. with that, the women in our lives deserve more. equal pay for equal work. when our mothers, daughters and sters put in a hard day's of labor. fair pay is the best gift we can give women and families they cherish. mr. speaker, i yield back my time. the speaker pro tempore: the gentlelady yields back. for what purpose does the gentleman from pennsylvania seek recognition? >> request unanimous consent to address the house for one minute and revise and extend. the speaker pro tempore: without objection. mr. thompson: the infernl revenue service on monday issued final regulations regarding emergency personnel under the employer mandate of the forecast forecast. they determined that emergency

personnel will not be treated as full-time employees, which i was pleased to hear. 90% nationwide fire departments are served by community volunteers. by protecting these organizations by being defined as employees they will no longer be forced to provide health insurance or face the threat of penalty. as a firefighter and e.m.s. volunteer since 1983, i join representative barletta along with numerous colleagues to force the i.r.s. our local emergency organizations have the certainty they will have the money to keep our communities safe. unfortunately, this is a small fix to a massive law as imposing economic harm on millions of businesses and families, our work remains. i yield back. the speaker pro tempore: for what purpose does the gentleman from new jersey seek recognition? >> ask unanimous consent to

address the house for one minute and revise and extend my remarks. the speaker pro tempore: without objection. mr. holt: i rise today to honor the birth of charles darwin and call attention to a resolution i introduced with other members marking his birthday as ceremonial darwin day. he discovered that the drive of survival of each species produces an evolution. this changed our understanding of the world. paved the way for enumerable advancements in technology and education. without his recognition that natural selection enables increasing complexity, our comprehension of the world would be vastly poor. it represents much more of a discovery. his approach to life and to the world around him should be celebrated as much as his discoveries. his thirst for knowledge and

scientific approach that enabled him to uncover the theory of evolution. this lesson as the discovery he made and the explanations he gave. thinking like a scientist is all too absent from our public dialogue and this is why we should continue to celebrate darwin as a master of clear, evidenceed-based thinking. we in this house would do well to emulate his vision and thinking and i urge my colleagues to join me in marking darwin day. the speaker pro tempore: the gentleman's time has expired. for what purpose does the gentleman from new york seek recognition? >> i ask unanimous consent to address the house for one minute and revise and extend my remarks. tomorrow on february 12, 2014, we honor the fifth anniversary of the crash of flight 3407 in clarence center, new york and remember the 50 men and women and one one born child that died

that tragic night. as being on the scene following the crash and witnessing the grief of the victims' families, remains with me forever. flight 3407 families had their families ripped away in a horrible and preventable accident. with grace and courage, these families turned their loss into a crusade to make the skies safer for all our families against very steep obstacles. the families prevailed and forced congress to pass legislation requiring airlines to put well-trained pilots in every cockpit. on the fifth anniversary, we remember those who died that night and extend our gratitude to those families to make sure that their loved ones did not die in vain.

the speaker pro tempore: the gentleman's time has expired. the gentleman is recognized is recognized for one minute. mr. cohen: on thursday, in memphis, at 10:00, i will be holding the first of a health forum on issues of importance to people of the ninth district. the one on thursday will be on the radical difference, racial difference in breast cancer morbidity. "new york times" and study showed that african-american women have greater pro pencity and will have a panel discussion and find ways to have people get them to change their diets. under the affordable care act you don't have to have a co-pay or deductible and it can decrease. people need to get their mammograms and community health centers that have been funded, get mammograms, watch their diet

and reverse that. come to the church health center on union in memphis and learn more about this problem. i yield back. the speaker pro tempore: the gentleman yields back the balance of his time. for what purpose does the gentleman from georgia seek recognition? >> permission to revise and xtend. >> the people of bahrain are marking the third anniversary of the popular protest. they took to the streets to demand human rights and government protection. mr. johnson: sadly, this anniversary will not be one of celebration rather than see a move towards reform, abuses and restrictions continue and expressions of association, freedom of association and expression have been curtailed

drastically. human rights defenders are jailed for life for peacefully for calling for reform while olice officers who torture are allowed to walk free. as thousands of u.s. service members, the u.s. needs to call on the government of bahrain and adhere to its international human rights commitments. in the midst of increasing instabblet, it's time for the u.s. to hold its ally accountable and removal of the fifth fleet and i yield back. the speaker pro tempore: the gentleman's time has expired. under the speaker's announced policy of january 3, 2013, the gentleman from kansas, mr. huelskamp, is recognized for 60 minutes as the designee of the majority leader. mr. huelskamp: i appreciate the opportunity to visit with you this evening. i know we have many of my colleagues that would like to visit about a very, very

important topic and that's the topic of marriage. we are currently in the midst of a national marriage week which is a global effort with 16 other countries to promote marriage. and i think we are going to hear tonight, some very important information of how important marriage is to our culture, to our families, to our society. most importantly in my mind, to our children. mr. speaker, and i would like to ield to the congressman -- congresswoman, michele bachmann for minnesota, for as much time as she might consume on this topic. mrs. bachmann: mr. speaker, i want to thank representative huelskamp for sponsoring this important topic. it is fitting and proper we set aside this period of one hour to focus on the institution that is a fundamental grounding

institution of the united states of america. there are various units of government. we here in the well are the greatest deliberative body, house of representatives. that's what is at the federal government level. we have 50 state governments. we have numerous county governments and numerous cities across the united states. but the fundamental institution, the fundamental unit of government is the family unit and the family unit begins with husband and wife. and this isn't, mr. speaker, a creation of the republican party. marriage isn't a creation of the western civilization or the united states of america. marriage is an institution that created none other created by the creator of mankind himself and it is clearly stated that after god created man and woman, he then created the institution of marriage and he created it

for a very simple reason. it's because god had a plan for man for the future. and that was through the propagation of the human race. so as we are here talking about marriage this evening, my colleagues who will be joining us on this floor, we are here not to condemn anyone. my parents were married and then were divorced and then were remarried again. and that's a story that is repeated not just in america but families across the world. we are here not to condemn tonight. because even though creates an institution like marriage and even though man and woman can mess up and not necessarily fulfill what god had hoped for because god says he hates divorce, it does happen, god is also the god of a second chance and he gives people that opportunity once again to go back into relationships.

so an institution that is meant for our god, it's one that, in fact, has been been for good, good for man, good for woman, but most of all, good for the children that come from that union. my husband and i were blessed with five biological children and privileged to serve as foster parents to 23 wonderful foster children. without the umbrellas and the protective element of marriage, that is the greatest security blanket that any child can ever know, to know that in their life there is a mom or a dad that is crazy about them. and many, many women raise children on their own. many men are raising children on their own, but we know it's this fundamental institution of marriage that is the bedrock institution of this land. and so we're here tonight, as

imperfect and filled of mistakes as we are, again not condemning, we are here to lift up, support and encourage this wonderful gift given to us by the creator that given to us for our good and for the building up of this country. and i yield back to mr. huelskamp. mr. huelskamp: i appreciate your leadership on so many issues. and one of the inspiring parts of your life to me is you and your husband's efforts as foster families. if you have any stories to share about the many children that to se -- as a mom and dad these kids must have made a difference. mrs. bachmann: we have seen another couple in our church that were serving as foster parents. that induced us. our hearts broke when we saw the

lives of some of these kids and we know we didn't have a perfect marriage, but we thought we could offer something into the lives of these kids. every child needs to know that at least one person is committed to them and at least one person is crazy about them and it isn't to take away from the foster children's biological parents. families go through rough patches. marriages vr challenges. nothing is perfect. and we are not standing up here saying any of us are perfect, because we aren't. but what we do know is a perfect god created a pretty good institution and that's marriage and that's the one thing we felt we could offer to our foster children is an example of two very imperfect people in an imperfect home, but we were able to offer that model of what god had created and that's bringing man, woman together. we are two whole people, but

when we come together in marriage, we are stronger than two people together. it is a unique three-stranded chord. and i thank you for this opportunity. mr. huelskamp: many parts of the country are short of foster families. one thing you could say to a couple considering that, what would you say? rs. bachmann: think about it. ms. balk map: -- mrs. bachmann: think about it. if you don't think you can do it, we didn't. we took a little girl. then we got a call, could we take another. we took another. and then another and then another. we didn't have room around the dining room table, so we took out the wall and made it bigger. what i would say is you'll be

amazed how your heart can expand. it's all good. i just urge people to consider becoming foster parents. mr. huelskamp: thank you, congresswoman bachmann. thank you for your time this evening. next, a colleague, a freshman from california, i might remind the body that five justices on our supreme court apparently didn't think california voters should decide some issues of marriage but congressman doug la mall la is becoming a -- doug lamalfa is becoming an -- a leader here in congress. i yield to him. mr. lamalfa: i appreciate congressman huelskamp leading on this topic here tonight, especially since this is international marriage week, culminating on february 14. i'm pleased that my valentine is in town for a few days and it

picks you up because coming from california to the east coast does have its challenges in doing this job and doing it well. but it's so -- that's really the institution of marriage. your mate is your rock. your support. when you're in a role like this or whatever it is, it didn't have to be this, it could be any job. or what she's doing at home, what your spouse at home, taking care of family and kids and all that. you being a rock for them too. it's that partnership which is what marriage is, it was perfectly designed by god. it's the part where mankind gets involved where things can get a little messy. and so through prayer, through sticking to it, the institution of marriage is one that is a rock. it is kind of like it was in the nebraska defense years ago, you bend but don't break system of that's what the bond of marriage is supposed to be. it's supposed to keep together.

you have some tough days, some tough times, whether they're financial, whether they're things in your life a stressful job or somebody makes mistakes in their marriage, that bond is what keeps you together. it's sad that in this day and age, the sacred institution of marriage has been cheapened so much by, you see what's going on n hollywood, what you see with easy no-fault divorce, it makes it where people believe there's maybe an easy way out of this that's certainly not to say that people shouldn't have an out for a bad, bad marriage, an abusive marriage, but it also needs to be not taken lightly before you enter into it. so a successful blueprint you'll hear time and time again, there's statistics on it, is that if you in your life, finish school, finish school, whether it's high school, trade school, college, grad school, whatever it is.

grow up. be a middle more mature before you enter this institution. then, seek the bonds of marriage . then have kids. if you do it in that order, the percentage the odds of being successful for you, your spouse, your life, and your kids, you create kids yoirk bring kids into the world, off responsibility, a big one. to help set them a positive course. i've heard stats before that kids coming from a marriage, a family with a father and mother in the same home, have like a 70% better chance of being successful in getting through their life with getting through school, moving on, being supported to where it goes. so the institution has so much good going for it. indeed, one created by god and recognized by our founders as being a cornerstone of this nation's formula.

indeed, mr. speaker, it says right above you on the podium there, in god we trust. this is an important trust we have in upholding marriage. my colleague mentioned, being from california, we do some strange things out there sometimes. but amazingly, in california, two different propositions, in the state of california, passed, prop 22 and then proposition 8. by the people of california. affirming that marriage is indeed one man and one woman. if you open the flood gates to other ideas, other concepts, you don't know where it ends. multiple marriages, same-sex marriage, there's so many things that are not what the institution is supposed to be about. indeed, an institution created by god and supposed to be held up and respected by men. and women. but indeed, it is an important

responsibility, it's a decision you make not lightly because it's a lifetime decision. at least it's supposed to be. for me and my wife we just celebrated 25 years this year. we're proud of that statistic but even more so, grateful for the institution and what it means for our kids and the stability that this institution brings for them and for a nation , one nation under god. with that, mr. speaker, i yield back. mr. huelskamp: i thank the congressman, the gentleman from california raises some incredibly important points. number one, the personal aspect of marriage. also the social aspect of marriage. particularly for our children. i appreciate the efforts of voters in california, i apologize that a few justices decided to overrule folks in california on this issue. but next i'd like to turn toward a gentleman from texas who has

rapidly become a leader on this issue as well, that's congressman randy weber. randy, if you'd share with us some of your thoughts about marriage and its impact as we celebrate national marriage week. mr. weber: absolutely, mr. speaker. i thank my colleague, mr. huelskamp, for the opportunity to speak out today on marriage and what i'm going to call unmarriage. we'll talk more about that later. you know, mr. speaker, children are the only thing god can use to make adults. so we better give him a ready supply. and i would submit to those of us who are following this and listening that marriage has been the strong foundation of our culture and our society. our government recognizes marriage because of the benefits it extends to our society. a healthy marriage creates stability, it creates security, mr. speaker. a healthy marriage ensures a committed relationship with the mom -- with a mom and a tad to

raise, to teach -- and a dad, raise, to teach, and to instill values in those children. a change in attitude toward marriage over the past several decades has been slowly corrupting our marriage culture. but it is important that we continue to recognize the important institution that is marriage and allow the conversation on its public policy interests to continue in the states. this past week, sadly, eric holder, the attorney general, has once again thwarted the constitution, thwarted the separation of powers, and thwarted the popular will of the people when he announced that the department of justice, and i use the word loosely, would extend recognition of same sex marriages nationwide, including my beloved texas, that has adopted a constitutional amendment to define marriage as

a union between one man and one woman for our specific public policy interests. we adopted that in texas by over 76% of the vote in 2005. last summer, as we know, congressman, you've referred to it, the supreme court making yet another mistake, the federal definition of marriage and the defense of marriage act, doma, was ruled unconstitutional in the united states vs. windsor case. and as a result of the vagueness contained in that decision, federal agencies began developing interagency guidance that surpasses the limits set by our very own constitution. set by the supreme court. set by congress. while some of those agencies are referring to state law, mr. speaker, in determining a couple's marital status based on calledhe couple resides,

the state of domicile, others are using the state of celebration or where a couple is married when they enforce federal laws. this latter practice is unconstitutional. agencies do not have the authority to create law and therefore agencies which are following, quote, the state of celebration, end quote, in determining the recognition of marriage, they undercut state laws and inherently influence the debate within the borders of those states. that's why i have introduced the state marriage defense act this act solves that problem. it provides that a marriage will not be recognized by the federal government if it is not recognized by the state in which the person lives. a.k.a., the state of domicile. every american's marital status in the eyes of the federal government would be the same as in the eyes of the state where he or she lives. that would simplify the law, do

away with the confusion on the part of the federal agencies. at least in that one regard. so, again, i have introduced the state and marriage defense act of 2014 which provides that a relationship will not be recognized as a marriage by the federal government if it is not recognized by the state in which that person lives. that is it in a nutshell. my bill, the state of marriage defense act of 2014, is a state's rights -- is a states' rights bill. we in texas don't want other states or the federal government for that matter, telling us how we should live and we don't intend to tell them how they should live. and now about what i call unmarriage. federal government, leave marriage alone and leave it to the individuals who live in, contribute to, and build

families at the local level. federal government, divorce yourselves from this notion of dictating to the states. that needs to be an unmarriage. i've been married to the prettiest gal this side of the atlantic, tim, for 37 years. she's my girlfriend of 39 years. i understand that marriage is a commitment and it is a tremendous institution and it undergirds our very society. i'm glad to participate in this marriage week and to stand up and fight for states' rights. i'm randy weber and there you have it. mr. huelskamp: thank you, congressman weber. one followup question, if we could try to determine in your mind exactly where do you think our attorney general and the administration believes they have the authority to determine exactly what a marriage is? an you explain that to me,

congressman? >> mr. weber: i wish i could, tim. i think they've gone around the constitution, gone around the supreme court, i would say we have a constitutional crisis on our hands. here is an administration that's out of control, an attorney general that's out of control and sadly for the executive branch, for someone who taught constitutional law, that's a scary notion to me because i can just assure you that i've read the constitution many times over and i don't have a clue where they get the authority other than people have been silent and not stood up against that kind of, what i would call, wannabe kingship. i hope that enough people stand up and say, enough is enough, get become to the basics, back to the constitution and un-- as i said, unmarry this notion that the federal government has to be in our everyday lives. mr. huelskamp: congressman, thank you for your leadership. i appreciate your efforts on the

state and marriage defense act and i am a co-sponsor of that. i encourage my colleagues to take a close look at that. it's not just the issue of marriage. it's the issue of who makes the decisions. as the author of the kansas marriage amendment in 2005, i believe kansans should decide that. texans should decide that. not five unelected justices here in our nation's capital. next i'd like to yeelingd to the congressman from new jersey. congressman scot garrett. he's been a critical leader on many issues of the home and the heart and marriage and families and fiscal responsibility. it's been my honor to serve with congressman garrett and i yield as much time as he might consume, mr. chairman. mr. garrett: i thank the gentleman. i thank the gentleman for yielding to me. i thank the gentleman for leading this special order this evening. in recognition of what week we're in, celebrating national marriage week. and recognizing the very important -- importance that

marriage has to our society. our society, it can be said is built on four pillars. marriage, family, church, and the government. today, we are faced with the reality that one of these pillars is crud -- crowding out, attempting to change, the -- to change the makeup of the other three. we have seen that some of our government's policies have discouraged traditional family marriage and traditional family structure as well. but i believe as i guess the other speakers on the floor as well, our government has an obligation to support policies that support marriage and support the american dream. one of the most positive influences on the american society is a strong marriage structure. marriage is essential to sorte and essential to our american country and american dream. what i say is not ideology.

what i say is data driven and verified by the facts that marriage alone stands as a strong social fabric, a stronger economy and a better future for our children. individuals who are part of a marriage household are more likely to overcome disadvantaged backgrounds, more likely to be less likely to live in poverty. married individuals are more likely to earn more money, to save more money and are less likely to be in debt. see, marriage is not only important for the economic health of our nation, but is also important for the future generations as well. see, children are more likely to succeed not only if they come from a married household, but the chances of prosperity, and this is interesting, are greater, even further if they are raised in a community and neighborhood or what have you, if you will, that shares this value of marriage.

children who come from a married household, one statistic are 82% less likely to live in poverty and more likely to gain a college education and succeed in society. what is most essential to note that this is not only imperative for a child to be raised in a two-parent household but important for children to be raised in a community that values marriage and values family. children who are raised in that sort of community will have a higher percentage of married households and upward social mobility. i would note, to truly address some of the issues that congress here tries to address, such as child poverty, we must address the root causes of those problems and we must then acknowledge the solution to those problems as well. if you want to encourage economic growth, reduce poverty, ensure a prosperous nation for

our future's children, our government must encourage a strong family structure. i said once before, this is not ideology-driven, this is data- driven and why do i say that? if we want to answer the factors and answer this question of what are the factors that are preventing poor children from getting ahead from mobility, we have data to support it. a harvard study that looks at that just came out recently. the name of the study is "where is the land of opportunity?" ong title, but basically a studied -- came out of harvard and some of the colleagues over in berkley as well. and what they did was to dive down into the numbers, if you will, to see what are the

characteristics most likely to predict mobility for who? for lower-income children. so this harvard study asked which factors are the strongest predictors of upward mobility. which are the factors to look to that which bring children in poverty situations to a higher level and went through the various factors. of all the factors, most predicted of economic mobility in america, one they said clearly stands out above the rest and that is family structure, meaning what we are talking about here today, marriage. i'll quote. he strongest and most robust predictor and the factor of children with single parents. the indicator of what says what is most likely to suppress or

keep children from able to rise up and increase their stature in the community, be able to go to college, get a job and support themselves and be productive in society. in short, live the american dream, is whether or not they come from single-family households or a married situation. married parents' children have upward mobility. why do i say that? again, what this recognizes, it's not just an isolation nist situation, if you are lean are married, it depens if you are married in a community. and if you do, you are the fortunate child because you live in a situation that you are month likely to be able to say, my future is good, my fute tier

tur is one where i will prosper and move out of my current economic situation and do better. those two factors, whether you come from a -- single parents or married parents and live in a community where people around you are single or are married. i think it's interesting and it's interesting that this study comes from not some universities that you might think of being conservative, but berkley and harvard, we considered the source. a lot of research including some from brookings institute shows lot of irst points, a research has shown the first point and that is to say, if you are married, you are going to have a better chance rising up the economic ladder.

this study adds this additional aspect. i'll conclude on this and yield back to the gentleman. what we are saying here tonight is not idealogically driven. what i'm referring to is a data driven decision we can make as members of congress, as recent author pointed out, we had the president of the united states standing before us saying we must be a data-driven congress and data-en government. and i agree with them. the data shows to increase opportunity in america, to increase upward mobility, to sustain the american dream, people of all races and people of all income levels have a far better chance if they come from a married family and a married community as well. so to understand this and have government have an effect on civil society, we must

understand these parameters and i applaud the gentleman for bringing this issue to the floor tonight and i yield to the gentleman. mr. huelskamp: if i might follow up with a couple of questions as well. you do indicate one study, but clearly what we do have are decades and decades of research and personal experience as well, how important marriage is to reducing poverty, reducing crime. the number one single factor is the situation of marriage. and the gentleman from new jersey has brought some additional issues as far as community. when we sit in this body and we hear from the president and others, what can we do for the children? i wonder, was it about a year ago, and we had the president of france in our nation, as we speak, one million french saying marriage is important and were

they saying marriage is important for them? they were saying it is most important for the children. if you want to help the children, the research is clear, congressman has identified a study and study after study exists. if you want to help reduce poverty, if you want to help self-esteem, let's help encourage marriage. i appreciate your leadership. and i yield to my colleague from florida, a freshman, congressman ted yoho and this is national marriage week and close to valentine's day. i yield to my colleague from florida. mr. yoho: i thank my colleague, mr. huelskamp, from the great state of kansas, for holding this special order on the institution of marriage. marriage as we heard, the bedrock, the foundation of a society, and a strong society is necessary for a strong

community. strong communities are needed for strong states and thus, they form a strong nation. and we have heard over and over again the different aspects that people brought out. sociologyists talk about how the husband and wife are the building blocks which is essential to strong communities. it has been proven over and over again, the family unit, people will have higher grades. we toured several head start programs in our district and when i asked the teachers over and over again, what percentage of the people are at the poverty level? it's 90% to 95%. the next question is, what percentage of the students that are here come from single-parent households, 90% to 95%. it shows you the importance of marriage. marriage is an institution

passed down through thousands of years of human history. the three great religions and others recognize the importance of a marriage and it's gone through the test of time and it's been understood to be the union of a man and a woman. god and chingtifide by children only come from the union of one half of a d.n.a. strand of a female and one half of a d.n.a. strand of a father. that's god's law. in february is the month of lovers with valentine's day coming this friday, february 14. february 14 is also the anniversary of my wife and mine -- and i met here in the fourth grade, my fourth grade sweetheart carolyn. this february 14, marks the 39th anniversary of carolyn and i and

i'm proud of that fact. someone asked me what are you so proud of? i said my marriage to my wife. we believe in a traditional marriage. we tend to stay that way and i say, thank you, dear, i love you, and happy anniversary. thank you. huleshiles i appreciate your compelling story and that is shared by millions of americans, something of the heart. and it's not just of the heart and the home, but for our community and the entire country. and you know, the president tonight can disagree on a number of things, but in 2008 there are some words that were clearly on mark in terms of some items we have been discussing today and in his 2008 father's day address, the president said this, we know the statistics. that children who grow up without a father are five times

more likely to live in poverty and commit crime, nine times more likely to drop out of schools and 20 times more likely to have behavioral problems or become from home or teenaged parents themselves. without the institution of marriage, without the institution of fatherhood we are facing an epidemic. the president and i agree, it has an impact. it has an impact on every child and the lack of marriage and lack of stability and declining awareness of marriage hurts our children, hurts our society. reminds me of a story that was in dr. james dobson's book, i have two boys myself and he noted that some years ago, executives of a greeting card company decided to do something special for mother's day.

in a federal prison they invited any minimum mate who desired to send a free card to their mom. the lines were long and had to make another trip to the factory. they said let's do the same thing on father's day. ut this time, no one came. not one prisoner felt the need to send a card to his dad. now, many had no idea who their fathers were or how important it was. those who are listening, whether you are fathers or mothers looking at that, recognize that even though the society -- even though hollywood will tell us feas all about you, it's not. it's all about someone else. it's all about that child. needs a father, needs a mother. i have four kids myself.

i'm reminded of that every day, oftentimes by my daughters. but we aren't asking for perfection, but just asking for that time, that time to promote marriage and spend the time with your spouse. if you are not married, have children looking at getting married, that will stabilize and bring many things to your children. this is national marriage week. this is the opportunity here in our nation only to talk about marriage, talk about its impacts, talk about how its loss hurt our society. i firmly believe that it's been endless amounts of money up here, but you cannot replace the family, replace daddy or mom. e can do our best and help our

neighbors. . . there's a court that says we're going to let the states decide, unless you're california, but at the end of the day it's all about how important marriage is. marriage predates government. in 1856, the republican party had a number of things on their platform, one is very important they demanded a free kansas and being a kansan, we appreciated that. entered as a free state a few years later. they also wanted to face numerous other things including the twin evils of slavery and barbarism. they were talking about the issues of irregular marriage and the issues of traditional marriage and how important it was and still is to society soifment appreciate that many of my colleagues that joined us here tonight, most importantly, i want to speak again to moms and dads and spouses.

marriage can be tough. it really is. but god is calling you to do everything you can. it's just not you and your spouse. there's a third person in your marriage and god would like to bless and protect that marriage and give you many fruitful days ahead. with that, mr. chairman, i appreciate the time in this special hour during national marriage week and i appreciate folks that are listening, my colleagues, tweet out the message to encourage that. we can do many great things up here, we think new york washington, d.c. but oftentimes it's that one little thing we can do for our neighbors and spouses as we celebrate valentine's this week. with that, i yield back. the speaker pro tempore: the gentleman yields back. members are reminded to direct their remarks to the chair not a perceived viewing audience. under the speaker's announced policy of january 3, 2013, the chair recognizes the gentlewoman from minnesota, mrs. bachmann, or 30 minutes.

mrs. bachmann: mr. speaker, i thank you for recognizing me for 30 minutes to speak on a topic, no matter where i go or what i speak on, or if i'm being interviewed somewhere, i'm not the only one, it's other members of congress too, and this isn't a republican issue, this is a bipartisan issue that republicans and democrats, mr. speaker, confront wherever we go across the united states. and really, i think that it has to do with the fact that americans cannot countenance the fact that when we had people who were serving us in harm's way, it appears the united states of america, in one of the rarest occasions anyone can recall, wasn't there for those who are serving us on foreign lines. what i'm speaking of, mr. speaker, is the night of september 11, 2012. what's known as benghazi. people still say to us, mr.

speaker, again, republicans and democrats alike, because this is clearly a bipartisan issue. they say to us, when will we get the definitive report on benghazi? when will we get some answers on what happened on that night? september 11, 2012. because no american citizen should go and serve her country and not be protected by the nation that sent her there. those who were killed that evening, ambassador chris stevens, the first american ambassador to be killed in 30 years in the line of duty. shaun smith who were there that evening with our ambassador. and then also two men who gave their lives trying to protect our ambassador. glen doherty and tyrone woods. they weren't on the scene very long when they finally arrived in benghazi. the senate intelligence report that came out said that perhaps

15 minutes had lapsed by the time they aride on the scene until they were murdered by a sophisticated mortar fire on the roof of the annex. let's go back a little bit, mr. speaker. let's take a look at what we know to be true so far. we've had two reports that have been issued, one is from the senate intelligence committee, and i commend every american to go to the senate intelligence committee website and download that report, read it for yourself, share it with your friends, share it with your family. you'll be shocked at what you read in these findings. now the media didn't pick it up, the report came out, it's true, it was reported in the media as true that there had been a report but what the findings said about the lack of management and the lack of accountability coming out of the white house and the state department quite literally coming to the very doorstep of

the president of the united states and of the secretary of state hillary rodham clinton, mr. speaker, i think it's shocking and shocking is the fact that to this day, there have virtually been no firings at the state department for what happened at benghazi. despite the fact of the report that was issued by the senate intelligence committee and despite the fact that this week, the house foreign affairs committee issued another report after another investigation of what occurred at benghazi. you see, there was a report, mr. speaker, that was issued prior to this one. it was the benghazi accountability review board. but it's very curious that this benghazi accountability review board failed to interview the senior most decisionmakers and

the -- in the department of state. the facility in benghazi, the compound where chris stevens and shaun smith lost their lives, that particular compound is managed by the state department. it's run by the state department. and i'd like to go over some of the findings this evening in the minutes that we have together, i'd like to go over some of the findings that were issued in this report. as i urge my fellow citizens in the united states to go to the senate intelligence committee and read the damning report and conclusions of that report, i also encourage my fellow citizens to go to the house -- to the house of representatives committee on foreign affairs and download the report that was just issued this week also on benghazi and the report is entitled, mr. speaker, "benghazi: where is the state department accountability?

ert majority staff report house foreign affairs committee." the chairman of the house foreign affairs committee is from california, mr. ed royce he said in september of 2013, the state department cannot have a culture of accountability if no one, literally no one, is held accountable for the mismanagement and poor leadership of the accountability review board it self identified. in other words a report which in my mind, mr. speaker, was woefully inadequate in investigating benghazi, the a.r.b., the accountability review board, even that report said there were deficiencies in accountability at the state department. we know there was woeful inadequacy and this is something that has to be addressed. i call on members of the media, wake up, take a look at what the american people want to know and

that's answers, answers about what led up to the night of september 11, 2013, in benghazi. where there alerts? were there reports? did we have any idea that this tragedy was going to occur? absolutely we do. that's what this report shows. from the house foreign affairs committee. what happened that night? what does the president of the united states do? why is it that the media has absolutely no curiosity when it comes to where the president of the united states was that evening when the battle ensued? it actually wasn't evening. in washington, d.c., it was 3:40 in the afternoon. and the election that occurred in 2008, there were two democrat candidates. there was hillary rodham clinton and barack obama who were vying to become the nominee of the democrat party. and one particular commercial

was aired by hillary rodham clinton, it was famously called the 3:00 a.m. commercial. and the question that the ad asked is, who would the person that you want to answer the phone at 3:00 in the morning if a call comes for a tragedy? inferring a foreign policy tragedy. well the call did come, unfortunately. tragically. but it didn't come at 3:00 in the morning. it came at 3:00 in the afternoon. to be precise, mr. speaker, that call came in at 3:40 in the afternoon. from a desperate security officer in benghazi, inside the u.s. compound, who picked up the phone and made a call to the desk that he was to report to, that call immediately was transferred to the appropriate channel and literally, mr. speaker, within minutes of the attack on the compound in

benghazi, the president of the united states was informed. not only that our american compound was under attack, in what could only be called one of the greatest he will holes of the world but he was -- one of the greatest hell holes of the world but he was also informed one of our ambassadors was missing and others as well. what would a command for the chief do? what did our commander in chief do? i don't know. as a member of congress, i don't know. i don't know where our commander in chief was that night. i don't know, as a member of congress, what your commander in chief was ding that night. i do know again in 2008, hillary rodham clinton said she would be the individual who should appropriately take that call. she was the secretary of state at that time on september 11 of 2012. where was the secretary of state? she was here in washington, d.c. what did she do when that phone call came in? she has testified before the

united states congress and answered questions. but let's take and review, again, for the few moments that we have what this report states about that infamous evening. and to understand anything this tragic, mr. speaker, we need to understand the context of the times. that's what this report begins to lay out. the context. may, w that in 2011, in our brave united states special forces took out the menace and the head of the al qaeda organization, osama bin laden. we're extremely grateful for the work they did. despite that blow to al qaeda eas network, aldie -- to al qaeda's network, al qaeda wasn't done. and they're still not done today. al qaeda's influence continued to spread, spread well beyond afghanistan and pakistan, it spread into the area of northern africa. there's a disturbing trend that occurred in libya. and there was a concern, led by

our president of the united states, barack obama, he stated that the united states needed to unilaterally go into libya and begin boming -- bombing. the leader of libya was a man named muammar gaddafi. he'd been head of libya for a number of years. he's not a good actor. he's not someone the united states would consider a friend. as a matter of fact, we discovered that gaddafi was hoping to start a nuclear program in libya. events ensued and that program was stopped. gaddafi changed his ways, so to speak, and became a partner in fighting the global war on terror and was jailing islamic terrorists in parts of libya. gaddafi was acting in this manner and yet at that time, president obama felt that he needed to go in and bomb gaddafi. i severely disagreed with

president obama at the time, mr. speaker. this was the wrong action for the united states to take. president obama didn't come to this body, he didn't seek permission from the united states congress to declare war on libya. libya which had not declared war on the united states. but president obama literally sent in united states airplanes and began bombing libya. at the time, mr. speaker, i was running to become president of the united states. at that time, i stated i was unalterably opposed to president obama's policy. we should not be bombing in libya, mr. speaker. that's what i said at the time. why? because we already knew that especially in the eastern part of libya, this was the number one area where people were recruited, terrorists were recruited to come and kill american soldiers in iraq.

this was also training grounds and training camps for al qaeda and other terrorist fortses in eastern libya. you see, mr. speaker, if president obama went forward, i said at the time, and bombed libya, and created instability, the question would be, who would take over for gaddafi? who would fill the leadership void? only competing structure was terrorist forces, arguably, i said at the time, mr. speaker, we could even conceivably see al qaeda come in to fill the void and libya, being a nation that is not a poor nation -- they have oil revenues that finance that country and i was there speaking with the prime minister and head of the justice ministry and the foreign affairs ministry, this

is a nation that has a great deal of infrastructure particularly in the tripoli area and has revenues coming in. as revenues come in, we could see there could be bombing, de stabilization, fight for power, see terrorist elements come in, those elements that would be in line for the goals and objectives of al qaeda and could see oil revenues being used and go into the pockets to continue to finance global terrorist activities. and unfortunately, mr. speaker, this is exactly what has happened in this region. that's what president obama's foreign policy in libya led to, to terrorists being on the march. and that is the context at the

time that led up to september 11, 2012. in that disturbing trend that was turg in libya after a near total collapse after president obama's ill-timed and unfortunate bombing of libya, there is nearly 1,000 islammist mill tapts that converged on the courthouse in benghazi and came in with 100 to 250 vehicles. for two days they had a rally that was known by the terrorist organization. that is in june of 2012, just a few months before september 11, after this major rally that occurred also in june, 2012 an hole in a - blew a wall that surrounded this very

compound where chris stevens was murdered. so in june there was a terrorist explosion that occurred just months before our compound. hat was a second explosion and attack. that was the second attack on that come pound. did we have notice? we absolutely had notice prior to that time. with that second attack. but elsewhere in benghazi, the united kingdom, our closest ally and english-speaking partner, they were drew from their staff ed. r rocket-propeled attack it wasn't the u.k. that pulled out. the united nations pulled out and international red cross

pulled out. the u.s. flag was the only western flag that remained flying in benghazi. did we know? did secretary of state clinton, did president obama know that benghazi was in a state leading up to his re-election in the fall of 2012? absolutely they knew what a precar youse situation this was. because our intelligence agencies showed that. they did their job. they warned not only warned president obama and secretary of tate clinton that there was an deteriorating environment and that it mounted a significant risk to united states' personnel and to united states'

facilities. you see, this is the first question that needs to be addressed. did the president of the united states know this was a volatile situation? the answer is yes. did secretary of state clinton know this was a real concern that benghazi could be under attack. without a doubt, yes, she did. it was secretary of state clinton herself who stated before congress in testimony that she well understood and quote was certainly aware of this reporting by our intelligence community as well as the fact that extremeists claiming to be affiliated with al qaeda were active in the area in benghazi and still after the united kingdom pulled out and left, secretary of state haint that the - decision

oons would remain. after the international red cross pulled out, secretary of state clinton made the decision that the united states and our ambassador would stay and remain in a facility that was not ecure to vulnerable attacks. smasks the united states citizens paid for reports that were done and completed by our intelligence services that provided warnings that groups that had not only the capacity but the intent to strike the united states and western facilities and libya could do that. we had a report that was reported in june, 2012, terrorists are targeting u.s. and western interests. could we have been any more clear, could the intelligence

committee be any more clear. they issued a bulletin to our president and secretary of state. they are targeting western and u.s. interests and still they made the decision that our vulnerable facility would remain open. what happened? a lieutenant colonel in our military named andrew wood, before and after these attacks, he appealed to washington for added security in benghazi. he knew. he was a military man. he led a u.s. military team. he asked for supplemental plementic security in libya and ofscadded that they pull out benghazi all together. but his warnings weren't heeded.

in fact, tragically, his warnings went unheeded. and despite the growing danger, state officials in washington denied the requests made by lieutenant colonel andrew wood. when andrew wood said we should get out of benghazi and was told no, he said if we are going to stay in benghazi, at least more security. lieutenant colonel andrew wood was denied and told we aren't going to give you more security in benghazi. in fact, they took away security in benghazi. this was after the compound was attacked with an i.e.d. xplosive device, after a rocket-propelled grenade was fired and the international red cross left. numerous incidents.

16 different incidents, terror incidents occurred in 2012. d despite the pleas from the military for more security, secretary of state clinton did not give in to those requests. the president of the united states did not give into the requests for additional security and yet our ambassador remaped on that infamous night on september 11, 2012, without adequate security. it was a tragic loss of life, i believe a preventable loss of life. but what is even worse from that consequence, if there can be anything worse from that loss of life, that action emboldened america's enemy, our adversaries saw what we did in the midst of our mightened terrorist

activity. when they killed our ambassador that night, they saw how the united states responded. we did not have military on the ground. i'm not faulting our military. what i'm suggesting is that the president of the united states and the secretary of state, despite a.m. will warning did not put them on high alert in this volatile region. whatever region on the earth besides afghanistan, would have had this level of violence on that particular night, especially after there were already protests going on in cairo and threats being made by terrorists of retall tower actions. it is shocking to me, mr. speaker, that the president of

the united states, despite this knowledge, failed to do anything in response to the pleas for additional security or at minimum, pulling our ambassador out of that region. yes, we have answers. we have absence answers, and we still have questions. committee members demanded that appropriate state department officials be held accountable for these decisions as they rightly should so these mistakes wouldn't be repeated. neither the white house or the state department have stepped up to the responsibility. instead, instead, the accountability review board, which did the first review, was seriously deficient. they failed to even comment on the actions of our secretary of state hillary clinton or most senior officials in the state

department. why is this? could it be because secretary of state hillary clinton herself selected four out of the five review members? you see, isn't it convenient, mr. speaker, when it's our secretary of state, who gets to decide who sits on her own accountability review board, overlooking the actions of what happened on that infamous night. she selected four out of the five. those are my words. so when she is selecting four out of five who are going to review her actions, is it any wonder that this accountability review board, if that's what you want to call it, decided that we won't interview secretary of state clinton. we don't think we need to talk to her or task to any of the

state decision makers. oh, no. they chose to bypass those who are the decision makers. mr. speaker, that sounds like the i.r.s. after the terrible scandal that is going on in the i.r.s. where they are trying to deny to conservative tea party organizations their tax-ex permit status. how can you have an investigation. how can you have an accountability review board if you don't interview the decision akers and state department and secretary of state and her advisers. this is embarrassing, even if it was president more tragic. because they are talking about the unprecedented loss of life

of four americans, including our ambassador. well, secretary of state clinton herself championed the united states going into the country of libya going back to 2011. she testified before the committee that she was engaged in the issues. well, that's pretty interesting, mr. speaker. the secretary of state and president obama believed that the united states of america unilaterally needed to go into libya and start bombing. that was their agreed-upon decision. and when the chips were down and when the threaten virmente was deteriorating in libya and when lieutenant colonel woods said we have a problem in benghazi and we have to pull out or have more security and the secretary of state and those who serve under

here don't heed those warnings, not only do they not pull out of benghazi or not give the increased security to do that, then that's a problem. with an additional problem is the fact that at the state department, not one employee was paycheck ven missed a over what happened at benghazi. i would imagine, mr. speaker, there's a lot of americans that don't know that, that despite this, despite this tragedy, despite this lack of accountability of anyone being held responsible, oh, yes, we heard there are four people going to lose their job, my foot, mr. speaker, four people didn't lose their job at the state department. run retired, two were

reassigned. no one was fired. no one even missed a pay check. what we need is to listen to the good common sense of the american people who are demanding answers, what happened in this leadup before benghazi. we need to hold the president and secretary of state of what they knew and why they failed to make the important decisions. we need to ask that second question. what in the world was what was the president of the united states doing that night, when the compound in benghazi was attacked. for other eight hours they were attacked and no one came to their aid or assistance other than those at the annex who came and were willing to lay down their lives and those who came from tripoli. took them hours and hours but they were finally able to come, to assist their comrades in arms. and then also the third question

that needs to be addressed, mr. speaker, is this. what happened after that night in benghazi? why did secretary of state hillary clinton, why did president barack obama, continue to force the false fiction that there was a video that no one saw, that that was the cause for a spontaneous outbreak that led to the deaths of these four americans in benghazi? we listened to people on the ground in benghazi. they stated overwhelmingly this attack was not spontaneous, it was planned. and yet for weeks afterwards, the president of the united states, as late as september 25, when he went to the united nations, he made a statement, this is after four americans were killed, the president of the united states said this at the u.n., he said the future does not belong to those who insult the prophet.

those were his words. we need to get answers. again, i encourage the american people, mr. speaker, read this valuable report issued this week by the committee on foreign affairs in the house of representatives on benghazi. i thank you and i yield back. the speaker pro tempore: the gentlewoman yields back. does the gentlewoman have a motion. mrs. bachmann: yes, i do. i move that the house do now adjourn. the speaker pro tempore: the question is on the motion to adjourn. those in favor say aye. those opposed, no. the ayes have it. the motion is adopted. accordingly the house stands adjourned until 2:00 p.m. on friday, february 14, 2014.

and republican members, what's at stake for supporting suspending this debt ceiling? >> we look at john boehner's decision to move away from the attachments, we saw him tridding one political decision for another. the first one would have allowed a fight, he was going after democrats for voting against military refirmente -- retirement benefits. instead it appears he's just going to start attacking democrats for voting to raise the debt ceiling saying it's the president's debt, it's the democrats' debt. already warming up what we can expect to see going into november. criticism of democrats for increased spending and debt. democrats think it's a winning

message for them to vote for this. they think voters reremember the shutdown and they're pushing the idea that this is democrats being responsible, not using brinksmanship, taking care of the country's business, getting things done as they should be. host: in terms of the bill itself, this is a raise of the debt ceiling, the bill simply says suspends the debt limit through mar 15 of 2015. what does that mean? caller: that means tr more a deadline than an actual number. this allows potentially the house to reassess or congress to reassess this issue in march without allowing the treasury department to use those extraordinary measures we've seen used in the past. with know that the debt limit was supposed to expire on february 7. treasury said, you know, given the way it was done before, we probably have until the end of the month to get it done. this will be a similar situation in march. previous iterations we've seen, the debt is suppose -- debt ceiling is supposed to expire in

february, the treasury says we can make it last until august or september. that won't be the case. republicans are hopeful they hold on to the house, maybe take the senate in the election this is fall and when they come back in 2015, they're in a much stronger negotiating position. host: assuming passage in the house, they're out for a couple of weeks, not coming in for legislative work tomorrow, this presumably goes to the senate. what's in store there? caller: the senate democrats -- guest: the senate democrats are likely to move this along very quickly. they've been calling for and support a clean debt ceiling. this is the best possible outcome they could have hoped for. there is the possibility that some senate republicans try to make noise and cause waves on this issue. rand paul or ted cruz could hold the process up. so far no one has said that's what they're going to do but that's always a possibility. could make it take even longer to get done. it's unlikely.

the senate is likely to take what the house passed, move it long, not require the house to come back on it and wrap it up pretty quickly. there's a lot to do before they hit election season. host: ginger gibson is covering all of this for politico. @gin gergibson or read her work at politico. extend the ted to debt ceiling in the house, we'll watch as the vote continues. >> saturday, book tv is live in georgia for the savannah book festival, coverage starts at 9:00 a.m. eastern with roger of with k9 nd continues

warriors, john rizzo on his work for the c.i.a. and debra solomon rockwell. of norman the savanna book festival, live saturday on book tv. march 2, black power, the civil rights movement and the obama era. storian peniel joseph will take calls live on march 2 at noon eastern. and comment on february's in depth guest bonnie mars. read "women's history for beginners." go to booktv.org and click on book club to enter the chatroom. the director of national intelligence today told lawmakers a cyberattack is the greatest national security threat facing the u.s. here's some of his testimony before the senate armed services committee this morning.

>> thank you, mr. chairman, director clapper, general flynn, thank you for your service and thank the people of your organization as well. as i ask these questions, if they are -- if the answer should be in closed session, i'm sure you'll let me know but one of the things that we worry about, obviously there's cyberattacks but physical dangers and what i always think is what keeps me up at night when i think about what can happen next, and you know, i wonder what your greatest fear is as to a physical attack here in our country? >> speaking of a kinetic attack against the country? >> yes, sir. > well, i would worry more frankly about from about

cyberand the potential that damage that that could cause if it were a large -- on a large scale basis. fortunately, the state entities that have that capability probably have lesser intention to do so, whereas the nonstate entities that have less benign intentions don't have the capabilities. that's the mode we're in right now. that's whime very concerned about think up and comers, if you will, not the first line, which of course to me is china d russia, but to others that have more malign intent toward us as they acquire greater capability. >> general? >> i would answer by really two things. on the cyberside, i think an attack against our critical

infrastructure that would have potential damaging effects, our transportation, health care, clearly financial is an area we have to pay very, very close attention to, our energy sector. on the kinetic side, there's a range of things that keep me up at night. when you see these -- like the mumbai-style attacks, what happened in the mall in nairobi, what happened during the boston marathon, those are the kind of things that we have to continue to work together in the intelligence community to make sure that we're working as seamlessly as possible to share everything that we have not only with -- within the defense side, the international side but also on the federal, state, local and tribal level. i think that those -- that's really an important aztec of what we're trying to do in the intelligence community which is to work on integration of our intelligence system. >> that's where i wanted to go next was the integration. i think back to 2001 and i think of things that when put

together, here's a pilot school, people are being trained there, how good is the coordination today in terms of all the different organizations talking to one another to say, look, we have something that looks a little off here but we want to put it out to everybody else to see what you think? >> i was around then in the intelligence community, and i would tell you i think it's vastly improved and i think emblem mat exof that has been the integration of the f.b.i. into the intelligence community. that's made a huge difference in terms of penetrating what had been this firewall for many, many years between foreign and domestic. department of the of homeland security has improved that as well. i think there's been a lot of

improvement but this is a journey, not a sixed end point. snowdon ard to the damage, when we look at that i saw a report, i don't know how accurate it was, but they said, he used simple software to pull this off and i guess the fear is , and you certainly hope there's not a next snowden, but what steps are being taken or how are we making sure that when we put all this effort in that somebody with a couple of different software packages or, you know, their innate talent cannot do this again. >> of course in his case, kind of a perfect storm her film, he was a systems administrator, a highly skilled, technically

skilled i.t. professional he knew exactly what he was doing. it was his job as assistant administrator to arrange the databases. he was skilled at staying below the radar so what he was doing wasn't visible. had he been at fort meade proper, n.s.a. headquarter the likelihood is he would have been detected a great deal sooner. so we are are deploying, the s.a. and the rest of the community, is tightening up users and who has access. we are going to proliferate deployment of auditing and monitoring capabilities to enhance our inside threat detection. we're going to need to change our clearance -- our security clearance process to a system that continues evaluation. that all said, though, there are no mouse traps that we could guarantee that we'll never have another edward snow den.

our -- snowden. our system is based on trust. we've had egregious violations of that personal trust. we have a couple right now and we'll have them in the future. but our job is to ensure that we can detect sooner and consequently deter revelations of this magnitude. >> finally i want to ask about, you talked about organizations and materials they have that could cause incredible damage, whether it's a portion of a w.m.d. or they have these chemicals here, those chemicals there, it's not always government, it is shadow organizations and others in terms of tracking them. do we have a pretty good idea where these groups are located? and secondly, you mentioned that these attacks are just as likely in europe as they would be here. possibly you look at the

situation in chechnya that russia is also a potential. are we working with other governments even when they're not the most friendly to us? number one. and number two, are we tracking these groups on a constant basis? >> we track them as best we can. intelligence program. this is particularly daunting in respect to b.w., because there are so many dual applications where it's not evident that something is being done for nefarious purposes. the other thing that helps us a bit as we've seen in syria is that without the required expertise and industrial infrastructure capability, it's hard for these groups to do much with them. but this is something we watch very carefully. and yes we attempt to cooperate as broadly as we can with all foreign partners to include the

russians. who have, i think, their level of cooperation has improved as time has gone on here and now that we're into the sochi olympics, particularly with respect to external threats. >> thank you. thank you, mr. chairman. >> thank you, senator donnelly. senator chambliss. >> thank you, mr. chairman. gentlemen, we often forget that the men and women that serve under you are putting their life in harm's way every single day and in spite of all the difficulties that we face, that you've alluded to, we can never forget the fact that those men and women have done an outstanding job over the last several decades but particularly as you look back from 9/11 forward, they've done an amazing job of collecting intelligence and providing it to your customers to ensure that americans -- america has not sustained another major attack. so please express to them our

appreciation for their great work. director clapper, one country that's been a valued partner for --many years is -- and thats and has gotten lost in the shuffle of what's been going on in the mideast particularly and in africa over the last several weeks and months is egypt. egypt has been a strong ally for so many years, a great partner in the intelligence community as well as otherwise. we've had military operations as well as intelligence operations for decades. now there's a lot of turmoil over there. when president mubarak was ousted, the administration quickly threw him under the bus and embraced the muslim brotherhood who came into power. there's been no change in the position of the administration that i'm aware of on that and even if there has been, i can tell you, having just returned

from another trip to the mideast as well as having conversation with other allies from the mideast over the last few days and weeks, there is a strong perception in that part of the world that the united states is still embracing the muslim brotherhood particularly in egypt from a political standpoint. with all the opportunity for training and the -- in the africa region, particularly libya and syria and other countries that are not far away from egypt, give us your assessment as to the security condition of egypt today, particularly as they move into elections and where are we headed there? >> senator chambliss, first, thank you for your commentary about the work of the men and women of the intelligence community, we'll certainly convey that. i think you're quite right to highlight the importance of egypt from the standpoint of its

prominence from a population standpoint. it is a centerpiece in the mideast. very strategic ally because of access to the suez canal. the peace treaty with israel could go on as to why egypt is so critically important. the security situation there is something we're watching and are concerned about, particularly in the sinai and the emergence of a ansar al-makpis, a group that's an al qaeda wannabe an poses a threat in the sinai and poses a threat to israel. there are other groups, some of whom were involved in the benghazi attack and other groups in egypt that we're very concerned about.

that said, what we have attempted to do and john brennan, because of his long familiarity with that area of the world has, i think, led this effort for the i.c., have attempted to reach out to the egyptian security services and sustain our important relationship with them, despite all the vagaries of our policy is to sustain a strong intelligence partnership. >> general flynn i was also in afghanistan on that same trip and the feeling of our military, our diplomatic core and intelligence community is exactly the same when it comes to the future of afghanistan and that is, there is just an uncertainty out there that's been created by the fact that no decision has been made by the administration on what sort of force structure will remain in place in afghanistan to ensure

that the gains we have made over the years are going to remain in place and that there will be security provided for both the diplomatic as well as the intelligence community going forward, which is critical to ensure that those gains are maintained. in looking at the elections that are forthcoming and taking into consideration karzai, who i in k is off the charts now, his statement that he's not going to sign the b.s.a., when you look at the candidates who are up for election and i know there's a significant number of them, but they can be narrowed down to serious candidates, it's my understanding that all of those have either publicly or privately said they intend to sign the b.s.a. so what's keeping us now from going ahead and making a decision based on the fact that we know the b.s.a. will ultimately be signed?

why shouldn't we go ahead and leer up that uncertainty that exists with american assets on the ground in afghanistan? >> that's clearly a policy issue, senator, in terms of what the final decision is going to be by the president. i would say, because i would echo what we've already discussed, you know, the level of uncertainty, the potential loss of confidence by the people of afghanistan, by that afghan national security forces, it's a real problem. you know. and the loya jurga that was held last year, late last year, confirmed that the people of afghanistan want this b.s.a. signed. president karzai is -- has stated what he stated. i would just say that for the long term, we need to make sure that we also keep in mind the international community's commitment to this as we go

forward. >> among the 11 candidates, they haven't coalesced around a lesser number, all 11 are hanging in there and at least publicly to this point, president karzai has not indicated a favorite system of what that sets up, of course, is the election and then probably after that a runoff of some sort or -- one or more runoffs to actually come up with an elected president. and then you have to wonder, well, will the first act be to, you know, sign a b.s.a.? so this could be a very prolonged process. >> thank you. excuse me. thank you, senator chambliss. senator king. >> thank you, mr. chairman. couple of introductory comments. i'd like to echo senator chambliss' comment to both of you. senator levin and i went to the mideast in the summer. my wife asked me my overall impression when i got back. i said my biggest single

impression suzz the quality of people we have working for us, in the intelligence community and state department and frankly we haven't been treating them well with shutdowns and purr furloughs and pay freezes. i know it's hollow to say we appreciate it but we're not keeping up with what we ought to be doing but i just want you to convey that there are people that realize, sometimes enge we're getting better service than we deserve, frankly. i wanted to make that statement. the sec is, i've been coming to these hearings now for a little over a year and every single one that i've been in, the alarm bells about a cyberattack have been sounded. i remember one of the witnesses said that our number one threat was a cyberattack. the next pearl harbor would be cyber, etc., etc. and yet we in the congress haven't done anything. in 2012, there was a major cyberbill that didn't pass and this isn't a criticism of

anybody individually but i'm getting frustrated that this institution isn't moving on what we're told is the most serious threat that we're facing. there is some motion and discussion going on but i for one would like to see that accelerated because you both have pointed out that this is a major threat and it's something we need to deal with. ok. first question. according to a reuters story on the 12th of january, there is significant difference in the intelligence assessment of the civilian agencies in the military about the future of afghanistan after 2014. since you guys represent those two elements, are there differences? and if so, to the extent you can tell us in an open hearing, what are they? and i understand one side is a little more -- not a little more, but a lot more pessimist exthan the other. >> first, thank you for your commentary about our people and

just a brief word on cyberlegislation, i think it's clear we recently recognize wed need a partnership with the civilian sector and as, if nothing else, a first line of warning. since -- ever since we have done national intelligence estimates on afghanistan in 2007 i think we, the intelligence community has always been probably in the occupying the half of the glass that's empty and others, notably the department of defense, occupied the half of the glass that's full. so there is, i think, some difference, i think we in the intelligence community though e pretty firm about what the future of afghanistan holds.

>> you talked about long-term support, what about troop resence? >> there's a debate about them. to the extent we can devise a train and assist kind of megs that will facilitate the afghan

government and ensure its uture. >> president ruhani, let's turn to iran for a minute, presents a different face. is this a difference in kind or just cosmetics? >> i think it's probably substantive but the supreme leader is still the supreme leader. i think the president, they've known each other for over 30 years, they've worked together before, so i do think the supreme leader does have faith and confidence in the president. but if he doesn't proseus -- produce, if there isn't some indication of improvement in the iranian economy because to the extent that it degrades, that, of course, threatens the long-term viability of the

regime. so i do believe it's genuine but it's pragmatic. >> does our intelligence community have a role to play in verifying whether the iranians are living up to the commitments made in the original -- >> yes, we do. >> do you think it's possible for us to have realistic verification? >> i do. because of the extensive additional surveillance authorities that would be given to the iaea. >> final question. i'm sorry, i don't mean to be ignoring you but director clapper, you talked about edward snowdon and the difference between a whistleblower and a person who has done harm to this country. explain why he's not a whistleblower or hero? >> i'm only speaking to it from my standpoint. i've tried to stay out of the debate about his legal status and all that sort of thing, all

i can speak to is the potentially the tremendous damage that he's done which goes way beyond his concerns about so-called domestic surveillance. >> in terms of damage, you mean in terms of damage to our ability to gain information that might be important -- >> the compromise of sources, methods and importantly, trade craft and the jeopardy that's -- placed, as many of our of many of our valued partners. >> on c-span tomorrow morning, the oversight board testifies about government surveillance program, that's under way at 10:00 a.m. eastern live here on c-span. >> i think every first lady brings their unique perspective to this job. if you didn't, you couldn't live through it. i think to the extent that this feels natural to me at any

level, and i would never have thought that living in the white house and being first lady would feel natural, it's because i try to make it me. i try to bring a little bit of michelle obama into this. but at the same time respecting and valuing the tradition that is america's. >> watch our program on first lady michelle obama at our website, c-span.org/firstladies or see it saturday on c-span at 7:00 p.m. eastern. on monday, we conclude the series with a special two hour program looking at all the first ladies from marsha washington to michelle obama. >> the heritage foundation yesterday held its conservative policy summit. they talked about -- they said they should overhaul immigration laws but not right now. this is a little over an hour.

>> we've seen every combination of power, we've seen a republican president with democrat majorities, we've seen a republican president with a democrat majority then from 2008 to 2010, a democrat president who was capable of getting thru a very aggressive, progressive agenda with democrat control in both the house and senate system of we looked at all this and said, if we're serious about the heritage foundation about building an america where freedom, opportunity, and civil society flourish, we need to do something more to make sure our policies get across the finish line. that's why we started heritage action of after four years of being in business there are three things that are necessary for conservatives to do to ultimately get our america built. the first, and everybody learn this is in fourth grade civics, some people in the d.c.

establishment use it as a trump ard to tell any conservative who does something different. it's undoubtedly true we won't build the america we envision unless we win elections. however that's a necessary but not a sufficient condition for getting our ideas across the finish line. it's very popular here in washington, d.c. to say washington is broken. washington, d.c. is not broke . washington, d.c. is a finely tuned machine that aimed at expanding government's power, picking winners and losers in the economy and making sure those have access -- those who have access to the corridors of power, those who have access to the lobbyists who run this town, get the kashouts in the tax code, get spending in their favor, get the regulatory regime written in a way that allows them a competitive advantage over those who might want to break in and disrupt incumbent

businesses. washington, d.c. is a town where good ideas go to die and until e break the status quo bias, conservatives will never have victories. that's the second condition for conservative victories. the third is bold ideas. americans are desperate for bold ideas. they're desperate for bold ideas that are not about left or right but about uniting americans and making life better for all. that's what we're here to talk about. we have a fantastic roster of people talking about issues from school choice to access to energy, what we can do about cronyism in financial markets and all the way through the agenda. fighting the status quo is what gets you headlines. heritage action is proud of the headlines we've gotten for fighting the status quo. but we're also looking to introduce ideas to make life better for everyone in this country. that what we're working hard to do. i can't think of a better person

to lead off the discussion today then our first speaker. he's someone who needs no introduction. around the country this august, i introduced him simply as the real "mr. smith comes to washington," i'm pleased to ntroduce senator jim dement. >> thank you, mike. good morning, everyone. ladies and gentlemen, and members of the press, thank you so much for being here to join us today. i'm pleased to welcome all of you to this very important policy summit. i thank heritage action for hosting us today. i'm also very grateful to the many members of congress who will soon be speaking. i appreciate them taking time out of their busy schedule to join us and share their ideas. in addition, a big thank you to all the policy specialists from here at heritage and elsewhere who have lent their expertise to

shaping these ideas and will be part of presenting them here today. sometimes it's too easy to caricature conservatives as people who are more interested in stopping bad legislation than promoting good legislation. i know this is not true but i suppose at times it's tempting just to sit back and be snide about the many failures of modern liberalism and big government. with examples like detroit and obamacare, sometimes it's just too easy. but even with such easy fodder, we can't give in to the temptation. we're conservatives first and foremost because we know that conservative ideals will do the most to make life better for all americans. we have ve concrete solutions to build upon the successes of the past and realize the potential of the future.

crucially, much of this requires the cleaning out of the cobwebs and rust which have gathered in too many federal laws and antiquated federal tax code and regulatory regime that cannot address america's current challenges. in short, it's time for real progress. as the great c.s. lewis said, we all want progress. but progress means getting nearer to the place where you want to be. and if you've taken a wrong turn, then going forward does not get you any nearer. if you are on the wrong road, progress means doing an about-turn and walking back to the right road. and in that case, the man who turns back the soonest is the most progress i man. unfortunately, there is -- is the most progressive man. unfortunately, there's nothing progressive about the progressive establishment here

in washington. it cannot turn around. it is blocked by a berlin wall of the mind, trapped behind policies that promote subsistence, not independence. control, not freedom. and then endless gray concrete of centralized power. the men and women who will shortly take this stage have looked over that middle -- mental barrier and seen a new landscape, one where problems are solved, not subsidized. one where citizens are entrusted with the care of their own families and communities. one co-alreadied by opportunities as diverse as the millions of lives in this great nation. today we'll be looking at the path act which which representative jeb hensarling has introduced to diso the bumbling fannie mae and freddie mac and encourage private investment and innovation. we'll look at the power act into

deuced by senator tom graves and mike lee. it lowers the gas tax, cuts red tape and returns funds and decision making back to the same localities that know best how to use them. senator lee is also going to rebro deuce the welfare reform act along with representative jim jordan, which not only saves taxpayers hundreds of billions of dollars but puts social assistance back on track, getting people into jobs and out of poverty. we'll be hearing about the hero act which takes school accreditation out of the hands of federal bureaucrats and puts it at the state level while lowering the cost of higher education for students across the nation. representative raul labrador will walk us through the marriage and religious freedom act which enjoys broad bipartisan support and prevents government discrimination of any person, church, business, or other institution based on their

traditional view of marriage. these policy do not arise from lobbying of special interests. they are for the benefit of all americans. they were not designed to serve those who work the halls of power but those who sweep them late at night. if conservatives in congress wish to return to their seats this november with a mandate from the people, the ideas presented today will help secure that mandate. it's not sufficient for conservatives to run against agendas, they must advance ideas and legislation that will build a stronger america. a mandate to lead without a plan, without a proposal, without original legislation is no mandate at all. it is simply a continuation of a broken, deadlocked status quo. already, there are rumblings of

huge, contentious pieces of legislation we might see in the coming year. these bills, as always, treat the law like a club. when some 50-something members of congress bludgeoned the other 40-something with ideas they don't like. like the disastrous obamacare initiative, they attempt to address an issue all together in one grandiose action. legislation stretching into the thousands of pages, unready the very people who vote for it. they invariably increase spending and our national debt and create more problems than they solve. they're divisive to legislators themselves. when enormous bills are rammed through congress, it destroys any hope, any reason, to reach across the aisle and cooperate on improving our system of government in ways that are agreeable to everyone. perhaps worst of all, they divide our fellow citizens.

it's not just a matter of political disafwreem. we'll always have that. i think we can always fine a way to benefit from political disagreement. the unity americans have with each other does not arise from quashing those communities with different believes or -- beliefs or opinion bus allowing them to govern themselves according to their own beliefs and values. with so many different viewpoints and lifestyles and cultures are forced into one mold, resentment replaces love for one's neighbor. public affection turns into public enemyity. patriotism into ambivalence. i ask the leadership of the house and senate, regardless of party, to leave this ham fisted approach behind. instead of wasting time forcing the country into one size fits all policies, take the opportunity to genuinely consider the ideas we discuss here today. and allow for open debate on

these and other proposals that could improve the lives of many americans so easily and so quickly. i am confident that these ideas if allowed to inform our laws and way of governing will make the first great stride toward the three things we all wish to achieve. a strong economy, a strong society, and a strong america. let these both be our goal and our starting point. no matter our parties or philosophy, we can unite if we recognize we're running in the same direction. the agenda, this agenda you'll hear today to unite america has the promise to give aid to those disadvantaged by circumstance, opportunity to those trapped by bureaucracy, and protection to local values and endangered -- by local valued endangered by national meddling. these ideas can bring people

together once more in appreciation for each other, their country, and i dare say it, even our government. thank you and i look forward to being with you here today. [applause] >> jim has some time to take questions if we have them from the audience. anybody want to jump on first? jim, zsh >> jim can you start off and talk about your experience in the house and senate in terms of bold ideas when you were capable of moving them forward, what some of the hurdles were to getting those going? >> i better stand over here where there's a microphone. it's never easy to move things through the house and senate but i will say when i first came to the house, mike -- i was elected in 1998, there was certainly much more bipartisan working together. all the bills that i introduced, we had a bipartisan or

democratic co-sponsor, and -- but what i have found, not so much in washington, that america is hungry for bold ideas and clear leadership. certainly the polls are clear that they're pretty disgusted with congress in both parties. but what we found in the last year, we talked to people all over the country, students, minorities, people from all walks of life, is there is broad agreement on the things that we're talking about today. even, i think folks who have -- who have had a liberal mindset for a long time are starting to see that the federal government, despite good intentions, cannot do the things they're promising to do. they have not been successful running our schools. health care appears to be a disaster. but we see states opening up so many new opportunities. it wasn't too long ago when the

president said we were out of energy as a nation. but now that states have moved around all federal lands around federal regulations with new technology, we found we have enough gas, natural gas, oil to last 100 years. lowering the cost of energy and creating vibrant economy. so the bold ideas, mike, we see moving at the state level more than the national level. we can see choice in school creating opportunities for at-risk and poorer children who had no opportunities before. we see families with jobs because states are developing energy. we see a lot of states solving the health care issue in different ways. so these are not just pie in the sky ideas we're talking about. a lot of what you hear today is just taking the -- a need a legislative idea, and moving the power and money back to the states and doing the things in washington that we need to do,

doing them better and more effectively and more efficiently and hopefully at a her -- lower cost. so i'm confident that these ideas, these are not huge things like tax reform or entitlement reform that we know we can't get done this year. but the things in education we're talking about, the things in transportation, i know that there's a number of democrats who support them because some of the ideas have been introduced before. so i'm optimistic that if we take these ideas to the american people, that's the whole idea of heritage action is not just to take them to the hill but take them to the american people, inspire the american people with these ideas and then in that, hopefully we'll create a consensus with their legislators to get something done. the discussion of

amnesty and immigration, i'd like you to talk about the politics of that issue. >> well, i think the broader issue just these comprehensive thousand-page bills, we see the damage that they can do. and the pattern in washington now is to introduce them and pass them within two days before america has a chance to find out what's in it. that's what happened with obamacare, dodd-frank, and they would love to do the same thing with the huge immigration bill. that type of bill, it will divide our country right now. and we need immigration reform. but as we've talked about at heritage, we don't need this big conglomeration of comprehensive bills, especially at a time when americans have lost the trust in this president to faithfully carry out the laws.

there are immigration laws on the books that the president is ignoring. so how can we in good faith say, yes, we'll give an amnesty now and then the president is going to fix our borders and handle workplace enforcement and do the guest worker visas that we need. frankly, this is not a good time to do it. i believe that we need immigration reform, heritage has a step by step proposal that i think will earn the trust of the american people, unite the country around an idea and i think restore the -- this whole idea of our heritage of immigration which we certainly support here. but with this president, what he's done with obama kaye and arbitraryly enforcing our laws, how he's misused the i.r.s. against his political enemies to give the president the authority that would come with this giant amnesty bill does not make

sense. >> daniel patrick moynihan said you have the right to your own opinion, you don't have the right to your own facts. i had the opportunity to have a lovely exchange with david brooks on "meet the press" about the immigration bill and there's a misperception that there's an immigration bill in washington, d.c. that would give america the modern immigration system that it the serves. there's not. there's a corporate cronyism bill in the senate that's masquerading as an immigration bill that was written behind closed doors by this afl-cio and chamber of commerce and it would do a disservice to this to allow a corporate cronyism bill to pass, to make us all feel better about doing immigration reform and miss a chance to modernize the system. we are eager to work on a step-by-step possess to work on immigration reform. unfortunately there's nothing to work with here in washington

right now. >> today we're going to hear, i'm certain, a number of conservative ideas, heritage foundation, heritage action has done a great job in advancing them but to get them to become law, what plan do you have to get the senate democrats even to consider them and get them passed -- get them past harry reid or do you plan to take the ideas to the states where there are republican governors and republican legislatures that would have a propensity to be more support snive >> the american people have the right to be presented with a choice. i think that one of the things that we regret about the last three or four years is that they have not been able to have that level of choice because house republicans frankly haven't pursued a bold agenda. think back to the fiscal cliff debate of a year and a half ago. if you'd gone into a debate and said to the president of the united states, we just passed a tax reform bill that would have been pro growth, wouldn't have been worried about picking winners and losers but instead

making life better for all americans, that's what we want, to use this opportunity, to use the unfortunate opportunity of the fiscal cliff to do that. if you're not willing to do that, we'll maintain the status quo of keeping the bush tax cuts because now is not the right time to raise taxes. that allows the americans to see that there's a conservative agenda, that works for all americans, not americans who have access to lobbyists who can get a 0% corporate tax rate. we're here today to talk about those bold ideas. we hope that the people in the senate, the president, anybody in washington will look at those bold ideas and say, this is what what's right for america. frankly, we're skeptical. there's a status quo bias in this town that needs to be broke. we're committed to break it. bold ideas, we think, will work at the ballot box and we think anybody that works on bold ideas will result in electoral success.

but right now there's -- there's not a conducive environment in washington, d.c. to advance a gold agenda that's good for all americans because this town is where bold ideas go to die. so it's not to be done in the next six month bus the process of starting that process is what we're here too do right now. >> are you advancing some of these ideas -- >> let me jump in here. that's a big part of what we do. our folks at heritage are traveling all over the country, working with states, particularly in the area of school choice, right to work concepts, so we can stand here in washington and point to states that are working and working with these ideas and by promoting them i think we're encouraging other states to do them but as mike said, showing the world that conservatives have an alternative to what's going on here in washington today. that's been the real weakness, i think, in the last few elections is the idea that the economy is so bad, gas prices so high, it was going to take the democrats

and obama down. that doesn't work that way. americans need to know what we stand for. you'll hear part of that today. certainly this is not our whole solution for 2014, but you should take a look at that if you're interested and ideas that can build a better america. what we want the country to know is that the ideas that we're talking about really unite people. we have seen that all over the country. they agree with our ideas. sometimes they don't like the packaging of republican or democrat but the country is not nearly as quided -- divided as washington makes it out to be. if we can present ideas and we've seen it with school choice, for instance, juan williams helps us with school choice. minorities all over america are seeing that this is a way to get kids out of failing schools and into schools that are working and safer and get more opportunity. by doing this, i think we'll help pull the country together and hopefully show both parties

that the right ideas are also good politics. >> i thought maybe you'd make some progress there since it's been going on for 75 years. >> i'll let mike comment on that but we did make progress in the sense that we helped americans see. i think for the first time the farm bill wasn't a farm bill. 0% food stamps and the spending -- 80% food stamps and the spending on food stamps increased dramatically. they cut it back a little bit. if we hadn't forced a debate on it, there wouldn't have been any debate on food stamps or farming. i think we made it harder for them to drive through a farm bill without real reforms. we'll be working on that every day between now and then. mike, you were on the front lines of all of that. >> that's a great question, it el straits the problems in

washington we're here to address today. you can't find a single policy expert from right to left who thinks america has agriculture policy that makes sense. the peterson policy did something a few years ago, coming up with plans going forward and all of them said there needs to be changes to the agriculture policy. yet when the deal is struck three weeks ago, the media and nerve washington, d.c. said, bipartisanship has broken out in washington, d.c., washington is working, something got done. well, something got done in the sense that it passed but america did nothing to move our agriculture policy forward toward a modern, 21st century agriculture policy would look leek. instead we kept the same soviet-style ag policy this country has had for decades. i'm hospitalistic, we have gone through two years of frankly unpleasantness that none of us want to be caught up in over a

farm bill. i'm optimistic that the house agriculture committee, the senate agriculture committee, committees in the past that have had very little interest in meeting with policy experts to talk about what a 1st century -- 21st semplingry pardon me bill, will use the next few years before we have to go through one of these again to think outside the box. we've had members of congress express interest in sitting down with us and figuring out, when we have to do this again in five years, what's good policy, not just what's the status quo pushing forward but that's what's happening in washington. the farm bill is a perfect example but you see it in every other bill that goes forward and i think today is the start of turning that around. coming up, federal reserve chair janet yell lynn. and later, the debate on raising

the debt ceiling. janet yell lynn, the new federal reserve chairman and the first woman to head the central bank testified about the economy tuesday before the house financial services committee. this is four hours and 40 aboute economy before the house financial services committee. this is four hours and 40 minutes. >> the committee will come to order. the chair is authorized to declare a recess. semiannual the testimony for the chairman of the federal reserve on monetary policy and the state of the economy. i woulde get started, draw the attention of the

committee that we are blessed again with the appearance of the gentlelady from new york, carolyn mccarthy. what a blessing it is to have her back with us. [applause] the chairman will now recognize himself or six minutes to give an opening statement. chair yellen. that just two months after alan greenspan became the chairman in 1987, the stock market crashed. paul volker sent him a note that said congratulations, you are now a central banker. , you find the --

face the daunting prospect of facing a balance sheet that we have never seen before, in the face of an economy that is underperforming at best. allow me to paraphrase. congratulations, you're now the chair of the central bank. we look forward to working with you to ensure that the federal reserve has the tools that it needs to operate effectively into the next century. we look forward to working with you closely as the committee embarks on the year-long federal reserve centennial oversight project. any agency or bureau of government that is 100 years old probably needs a good checkup, especially one as powerful as yours. independence and accountability are not mutually exclusive concepts. the most critical issue we must limit of monetary policy to promote a healthy economy. we have witnessed the greatest

fiscal and stimulus program in the nation's history. the results could not be more is pointing. despite the more than five years into the so-called obama recovery, we still see millions fellow citizens unemployed and underemployed. there is unsustainable. why is the non-recovery recovery producing only one third of the growth of previous recoveries? there are 494 billion dollars in new regulatory costs upon the economy. to the incprehensible vocal role. -- rule. expande attempting to and create more jobs, and

monetary policy cannot fix this. and there is the single largest tax increase in american history. trillion dollars in new taxes from obamacare. these taxes fall upon small businesses, entrepreneurs, and investors as they try to bring about a healthier economy and create jobs. monetary policy cannot remedy this either. what else is different? uncertainty, and pessimism that has arisen from the erosion of the rule of law. iser before in my lifetime there more unchecked, unbridled, -- in desk missionary discretionary authority that has been given to government authority. we are slipping from the rule of law to the role of rulers. us thatident reminded

he has a pen and a phone to enact whatever policy he sees fit. regrettably, he does not seem to have handy a copy of the constitution. there are clearly limits to what monetary policy can achieve. thus the trillion dollar question remains whether it will take it slowly, and abruptly, or go into infinity. we look forward to hearing the chair's thoughts and intentions on the matter. project, we will thoroughly examine the federal reserve's unprecedented role in credit allocation. pick thesefed

markets to support while ignoring others? under the current policies, seniors on fixed incomes are clearly losers, as we continue to see the blurring of lines between fiscal and monetary policy. the committee will examine the federal reserve's role as the facilitator of the president --s deficit spending. president's deficit spending. consider how the federal reserve has undertaken the expensive new banking regulatory powers it obtained ct and whydodd frank a it fails to conduct an analysis. whether doddder

frank constrained. onwill examine an old debate monetary policy and rules of discretion. the central bank appeared to follow a clear rule. now it focuses on amorphous guidance. this arguably leaves investors as consumers lost in a mist they attempt to create a healthier economy. , we look forward to working with you. theope that there is expertise and resources to goals.vely fulfill its >> thank you, mr. chairman.

i would like to take a moment to say help out, please, and honored, to have our colleague, ms. mccarthy back with us today. [applause] thank you, mr. chairman. it is with great pleasure that i tocome you chair yellen deliver your first testimony. your presence here today is historic and well deserved. your record of distinguished service in government, academia, and that the federal reserve makes you uniquely qualified to navigate considerable challenges that lie ahead. your career in public service has been marked by high praise from economists and policy makers from across the political spectrum. in the face of an increasingly

complex and interconnected global economy, your sound judgment has been validated time and time again. in the run-up to the 2008 financial crisis, you actively identified the risk to the economy and spoke up, telling colleagues, " the possibilities of a credit crunch developing, and economy slipping into recession seem all too real." challenge to conventional thinking about the limits of monetary policy and appropriately encourage the fed to act. the economic data seems to the recovery still fragile. your willingness to think outside the box is more important than ever. like many of my colleagues, our

main concern that more needs to be done to address the long-term unemployment crisis. million americans have been out of work for weeks. damageuld permanently the labor force and slow the economy possibility to grow over the long term. i hope you will press your colleagues on the federal open market committee to take into account the ongoing impact that this long-term unemployment crisis is having on millions of american families. of course, the republican's ideologically driven austerity agenda, and their failure to extend unemployment insurance benefits, has made the situation more dire. the will not provide

short-term assistance that is needed and are putting more on the people. the responsibility for putting the economy on more stable footing cannot and should not work that way. we must address the growing issue of income inequality. recovery has disproportionately benefited the wealthiest in our society. i believe that the income gap is one of the most pressing threats to our economic potential. i look forward to your views on how we can work together to close that. finally, there are a number of pending issues related to the fed's will in

implementing the dodd frank act. i hope to hear more about the fed's role. this includes credential standards for large u.s. and foreign banking firms and your views on risks that continue to exist. as the 2008 financial crisis may help to clear, growth and prosperity are linked to financial stability. therefore, you are critically important. i yield back the balance of my time. recognize the gentleman for two minutes. , congratulations on being confirmed as the first

woman chair. i think you can see with the cameras in front of you, uncle up and hang on. this'll be an interesting ride, i am sure. i sent out a facebook and twitter tweet about what i should ask you. a number of things came back. competitiveness, our u.s. competitiveness. auditing the fed, and a number of other things. i have a couple of other things. i'm e-gov to hear your insights -- eager to hear your insights on the economy and the new rules. waters thank you for thinking outside the box. some of us are trying to determine what the box is these think we all have a responsibility to explain that to the american people. well originally created to supervise the banking system, the fed's world has continued to

grow, seemingly unchecked through acts like the dodd frank act, and other reasons. of last resort. this is something we need to continue to explore. given the interconnectedness of the global financial system, there is no doubt that the hasral reserve's policies impacted foreign economies. last week there was discussion of the fragile five countries out there, as was our own country. i look forward to hearing your comments on these topics during thank you very much. the chair recognizes the gentleman from missouri. for three minutes. .> welcome, chairman yellen as you report to the committee for your first time in this position, i would like you to

know that, like you, i believe that the actions of the federal reserve should always consider the impact and well-being of main street as well as wall street. following actively and controlling inflation. it also means closing the income inequality gap, which is hurting so many working families and threatening america's economic future. like you, i believe in fundamental financial reform and real transparency to protect american consumers. that includes maintaining a consumer financial protection bureau with real teeth and the authority to act strictly against misuses. i strongly opposed the majority's efforts to cripple be consumer financial protection bureau. it is shocking.

the majority that is more concerned about bringing comfort and relief, not to struggling consumers, but to some of the same financial predators who caused the great recession. congress enacted the federal reserve act to promote full employment. the consumer price index rose 2013 after an increase in 2012. .4%t is lower than the 2 average over the last 10 years. as a response to the financial emergency in 2008, the federal reserve bank purchase made loans and provided funding through liquidity swaps with foreign central banks.

this action significantly expanded the federal reserve's balance sheet. taperedhas gradually the asset purchases from the $85 billion to this month $65 billion in treasury and mortgage backed securities. in terms of supporting full employment, let's look at the data. because of the positive forman chairman bernanke, the unemployment rate in the u.s. is 6.6%, but the number of long-term unemployed is 3.7 million people. , as is even more compelling to why congress should extend emergency unemployment benefits without delay. out, but i look forward to the chairman's comments. >> today we welcome the

testimony of the honorable janet yellen, the chair of the board of governors. this was a position she was confirmed to by the senate on january 6 of this year. she took office on february 3 of congratulateee we , heror her confirmation historic confirmation is the first female chair of the board of governors. she served as the vice chair of the board of governors for years. was the president and ceo of the federal reserve bank of san francisco. during the clinton served astion, she chair of the president's advisers. she holds a phd in economics from yale. i want to personally thank you for cooperating with us to

there that every member of committee has an opportunity to ask you questions, as part of the hearing today. i hope the members are paying careful attention. theuld also say that unsolicited offer to stay all day, madam chair, you are in luck, we are not staying all day. this committee has a bill on the floor later this afternoon. you will be spared that. peeked at your testimony were you pledged to be accountable. you're off to a very good start by agreeing to do this. because of the anticipated length of the hearing, i wish to alert numbers that the chair does expect a call a couple of chair yellenng testimony. strictir will yield a gavel.

the written statement will be made part of the record after the oral remarks. welcome. you are now recognized for your oral presentation. time,thesis your first chair, you will have to bring the microphone mutts closer to you so weh closer to can hear you. chairman, and ranking member, other members of the committee, i am pleased to present the federal reserve's monetary policy report to the congress. in my remarks today, i will discuss the current economic situation and outlook before turning to monetary policy. i will conclude with an update on our continuing work on regulatory reform. knowledge the important contribution of chairman bernanke.

his leadership helped make our economy and financial system stronger and ensure that the federal reserve is transparent and accountable. i pledge to continue that work. gainednomic recovery greater traction in the second half of last year. product isdomestic estimated to have risen at an average annual rate of more than 3.5% in the third and fourth 1.25% pacep from a in the first half. the pickup has yielded further t.ogress in the labor market i 1.25 jobs have been added.

reserve began a new round of asset purchases. the unemployment rate has fallen nearly one percentage point since the middle of last year. and one in a half percent points. 1.5% points. they estimate this is consistent with maximum sustainable employment. those out of a job for more than six months continue to make up an unusually large fraction of the unemployed. the number of people who are working part-time, but would prefer a full-time job remains very high. these observations underscore the importance of considering

more than the unemployment rate when evaluating the conditions of the u.s. labor market. among the major components of the gdp, household and business spending growth stepped up during the second half of the year. 2013, the growth in consumer spending was restrained by changes in fiscal policy . as the restraint abated, ,ousehold spending accelerated supported by job gains and by rising home values and equity prices. similarly, growth and business investment started off slowly last year, but then picked up during the second half, reflecting improving sales prospects and still

favorable financial conditions. in contrast, the recovery in the housing sector slowed in the wake of last yours increasing mortgage rates. inflation remained low as the economy picked up strength. the pce indexes rising only about one percent last year, well below the objective for inflation over the long run. this reflects factors that seem likely to prove transitory, including falling prices for crude oil. fomclleagues on the believes that unemployment will expand this year and next. the unemployment rate will

toward ato decline longer run sustainable level, and inflation will move back toward two percent over the coming years. we have been watching closely the recent volatility in global financial markets. stage,se is, at this these developments do not impose a substantial risk to the u.s. economic outlook. course, continue to monitor the situation. turning to monetary policy, let me emphasize that i expect a great deal of continuity in the approach to monetary policy. as weed on the committee formulated our current policy strategy. and i strongly support the strategy, which is designed to fulfill the federal reserve's statutory mandate of maximum employment and stability.

prior to the financial crisis, the fomc carried that monetary policy i adjusting the target for the federal funds rate. with that rate near zero since late 2008, we relied on to less assetional tools, purchases, and forward guidance, to help the economy move toward maximum employment and price stability. onh tools put down pressure longer-term interest rates and support asset prices. financialmmodative conditions support consumer spending, business development, and housing construction. program of asset purchases began in september 2012 amid signs that the recovery was weakening and

progress in the labor market had slowed. the committee said that it would continue the program until there was a substantial improvement in the outlook of the labor market. in mid-2013, the committee indicated that if progress toward the objectives continued, as expected, moderation in the monthly pace of arches as would likely become appropriate later in the year. in december, the committee judged that the cumulative process toward maximum employment and the improvement in the outlook of the labor market conditions warned it a modest reduction in the face of purchases. billion to $40 billion month of long-term securities. from $40 billion to $30 billion

month the agency backed securities. meeting, they committee decided to make additional reductions of the same magnitude. information broadly supports the committee's expectation of ongoing improvement of the liberal market conditions, and inflation moving back toward the longer run objective, the committee will likely reduce the pace of furtherrchases and measure steps at future meetings. that said, purchases are not on a preset course. and the committee's decisions will remain contingent on the outlook for the labor market and inflation, as was the assessment of the likely efficacy and cost of such purchases. the committee emphasize that a

highly accommodative policy will for considerable time after asset purchases end. the committee has said that it expects the current low target range to be appropriate at least as long as the unemployment rate , inflation is6.5% .5%ected to be no more than above the longer run goal, and expectations remain well anchored. crossing one of these threshold increase inmpt an the federal funds rate, but will indicate if it becomes appropriate for the committee to consider with the broader economic outlook to justify such an increase.

in december of last year, and again this january, the committee said that its current expectation, they stop its assessment of a broad range of measures of labor market conditions, indicators of inflation pressures and inflation expectations, and readings on financial it likelyts is that will be appropriate to maintain the current target range for the federal funds rate. rejectedspecially if inflation continues to run below the two percent goal. i'm committed to achieving both parts, helping the economy return to full employment and whileing inflation to 2% ensuring that it does not run

above or below that level. i will finish with an update on reforms on regulatory and supervisory actions to strengthen the financial system. in october, the federal reserve ordered proposed a rule to strengthen the liquidity positions of large and internationally active financial institutions. together with other federal issueds, the board also a final rule and lamenting the rule, which prohibits the trading of financial instruments -- certain financial instruments. we expect to result -- report results in march.

reaction, including those that are leading to increases in the liquidity and banking sector, are making our financial system more resilient. still, important tasks lie ahead. in the near term, we expect to finalize the rules implementing enhanced credential standards mandated by section 165 of the dodd frank wall street reform and consumer protection act. we also are working to finalize the proposed rule, strengthening the leverage ratio standards for us-based, since technically -- systemically important banks. there will be a surcharge for , as well as a long-term debt requirement to ensure that these organizations can be resolved.

in addition, we are working to advance proposal on margins for derivatives consistent with the framework and are evaluating possible measures to assess risks associated with short-term wholesale funding. to monitor fore emerging risks, including watching carefully to see if regulatory reforms work as intended. since the financial crisis and the depth of the recession, progress has been made in restoring the economy to health and strengthening the financial system. still, there is more to do. too many americans remain unemployed. and the work of making the financial system more robust has

not yet been completed. i look forward to working with my colleagues and many others to carry out this important mission that you have given the federal reserve. thank you. i would be pleased to take your questions. the chair will recognize himself for five minutes for questions. i expect aied that " great deal of continuity on the approach to monetary policy." the obvious question. the guidance which has been anchored in the evidence rule, that seemingly said that it will not tighten until unemployment drops below 6.5%. chairman bernanke announced -- well, he described this as a tailor like rule. although he may not agree.

we stand on the threshold. i also see in your testimony " crossing one of these thresholds will not automatically popped an increase." wallstreet of the " journal" predicted this. the mistake was telling mark is there was a fixed will when the only sure thing is that the fed is more improvisation. who is right here? wallstreet journal" right, or do we have something like?is rule-

chair, could you pull the microphone closer to you? thank you. >> after it reached the effective lower bound close to zero at the end of 2008, the federal reserve was forced to provide additional toolsodations through that were new and novel. the most important tool that had been used, to some extent in the past, but we have relied on ,uite heavily since that time is the forward guidance concerning the likely path of monetary policy. you reach a threshold and then you ignore the threshold? what is the forward guidance? inwhat the fed indicated december of 2012 is that we would not consider, did not

think it would be appropriate to consider raising the federal funds rate as long as unemployment was over 6.5% and inflation was projected to run , as long as inflation expectations were also well anchored. we have followed the guidance. >> i would say this if i could, madam chair. out.me is running i want to cover a little of the ground, as well. dealing with a rules-based monetary policy. i think if i read some of your statements properly, and a lot of put words in your mouth, that you consider times after the financial crisis still extraordinary, and it is not necessarily an appropriate time for a rules-based approach.

i am in favor of a predictable monetary policy that response in a systematic way to shifts in economic variables. career, you said it is, " what sensible banks do." ,hat begs the question today using your words, are you a sensible banker? >> i believe that i am a sensible central banker. these are very unusual times, in which monetary policy, for quite a long time has not even been able to do what a rule like that will have -- would have prescribed. it would've said that the rule

and rate should have been in negative territory, which was impossible. the conditions facing the economy are extremely unusual. i have tried to argue and the ruletrongly that or something like it provides a approach in normal times, when there are severe headwinds from the financial crisis, and it is not been able to move the funds rate and the negative territory that rule would have prescribed, that we need to follow a different approach. , through ourting forward guidance, to be a systematic and predictable as we can possibly be. chairman, my time is expired, and i'm going to attempt to set a good example

for the rest of the committee. i recognize the ranking member for five minutes. >> thank you, mr. chairman. you alluded to continuing the policies that were initiated by on committee that you surfed with bernanke. i am a supporter of quantitative easing. i would like to hear from you what you think connotative easing did to stabilize this economy. can you tell us, not only what you think happened with how youtive easing, but continue the policy, as it is today? >> thank you, congressman waters.

easing and buying longer-term treasuries and securities, the goal is been to push down the long term interest rate. i believe we have succeeded in doing that. conditions financial accommodative. achieve mores to rapid economic growth. and i believe that we have been successful. that, asples would be mortgage rates fell to historically low levels, we certainly saw a pickup, a very meaningful pickup, in housing activity. we have also seen a meaningful increase in house prices. and i think that prove the

security of a large number of households. many households of an underwater in their mortgages. that fraction has diminished substantially. that means that those households are in a better position to spend and borrow. in addition, low interest rates have stimulated spending in other interest sensitive sectors, like automobiles. we have seen a decided pick in that sector, as well. when spending and employment increase in the sectors, the availability of jobs increases, unemployment comes down, growth picks up. as i mentioned, we have seen the beginning of this program, we have seen the unemployment rate declined 1.5%. i think this program contributed to that. our plans.about

when the committee began the policy it did to the time when it looked like recovery and progress in the labor markets was stalling. purchaseshese asset as a secondary tool, a supplementary tool to our forward guidance to add some momentum to the recovery. we said we would continue those purchases until we had seen a substantial improvement in the outlook of the labor market in the context of price stability. there has been a substantial number of jobs created. unemployment has come down. , a measured pace of

reduction and asset purchases. measuredd to act in a and deliberate way and take measured steps to watch and see what was happening in the economy. we have indicated that the outlook continues to be one in which we expect and are seeing continued improvement in the labor markets that implies grow strong enough, going forward to anticipate such improvements. , which is running below the objective, if we see that coming back toward our objective over time, we are likely to continue reducing the pace of our purchases in measured steps. programdicated that the is not on the present course, which means that if the committee judges there to be a

that itn the outlook, would reconsider what is appropriate with respect to the program. >> thank you very much. i yield back my time. the committee recognizes the chairman for michigan. >> did short proprietary trading cause the financial crisis? that was thet say main cause of the crisis. >> i'm sorry, it was not? >> i would not see that is the main cause of the crisis. >> i think we would be in agreement on that. just this past ,ear at the open meeting board they you some concerns about the volcker rule.

you asked what impact it would have on u.s. banks, in terms of do they face this advantage is compared to foreign banks in capital market activities? i have some of those same concerns, and i am not sure, as regulators, the alphabet soup of regulators that look at all of this, the discussion of the volcker rule and the impact. they seem to it indicate that the fed was very concerned about that, that we were not going to somehow be at a disadvantage. i am not sure we have made ourselves safer. would you mind chatting up that? >> it is something we will monitor over time, as he goes

into effect. the agencies have worked hard rintly to write a balanced ule that permits banking organizations to continue to engage in critical market-making and hedging activities. careful in how they supervise institutions -- >> i am sure you are aware. only major economy that has put anything like this into effect. you are comfortable saying, monitor this over time to see the effect? how long are you comfortable waiting to see what will happen? three months? six months? one year? how long will we see liquidity leave the united states and lose

that market share? will benk that banks able to go on as we implement this rule to engage in those activities, particularly market-making and hedging that are really vital to a well functioning financial system. >> is there a length of time? that is what i am looking for. how long are you interested in waiting to see the effectiveness? it is 932 pages. 200 and 97,000 words. -- 297,000 words. there is a lot to weigh in measure. >> we will be involved with other agencies with using supervision to make sure that firms comply with the role. ule. >> so an undetermined amount of time to see the effectiveness?

i will follow up with a letter. i would like you to put some thought about how much time. aw long will we be at competitive disadvantage is what i'm concerned about? . and the fragile five, indonesia, india, south africa, turkey, and brazil have been affected by our monetary policy. it is the reversing of our easing, i guess, as you would say. thatu have any concerns the tapering that we are trying to do might impact some of these other comedies, as well, and what will that mean for -- economies, as well, and what

would that mean for them? >> capital markets are global. the monetary policies of any country affect other countries in such a world. we have been very clear at the outset that we initiated a program of asset purchases and an accommodative monetary policy , more generally, to pursue the goals that congress has assigned for the federal reserve, namely supporting economic growth, employment, in the context of price stability. we have tried to be as clear as we possibly can about how we would conduct this policy. it has been quite clear at the outset that, as our recovery advanced, that you would wind down or reduce the pace of our i

said purchases -- asset purchases. thet goes backward from objective over time, eventually, we will normalize the policy stance. >> the gentleman for the time is long since expired. the chair would advise all members perhaps as that last question with at least 30 seconds to go in :00. thechair recognizes gentleman from missouri. >> thank you, mr. chairman. i will be cognizant of the time. rate is unemployment 6.6%. standsican-americans it at 12.1%. for hispanics it is eight percent. is a little over four percent. for among adults -- young adults it is 20%.

do toan this congress work in conjunction with the federal reserve to lower unemployment rates for african-americans, for young communityr the latino , any suggestions? for our part, we are trying to do what we can with monetary policy to stimulate a faster economic recovery to bring ,nemployment down nationally and because high in unemployment disproportionately affects many of the groups that you mentioned, if we are successful, it will have a great benefit to the groups that you mentioned. of course, monetary policy is not a panacea. i think it is absolutely appropriate for congress to consider other measures that you

might take in order to foster the same goals. some of those groups have been adversely affected, as well by longer-term trends in the verymy that have led to for thoseage growth in the middle and bottom of the income spectrum. we were seeing rising inequality. all economist that i know of think that improving skills of the workforce is one important step that we should be taking to address those issues. also assist byld taking a look at the infrastructure and starting a jobs program in that area where the bridges and other

infrastructure and put americans back to work? programsare certainly that congress could consider and debate. >> thank you for that response. in this beast at you gave last year, you stated that the evidence you had seen showed that the increase in subsidies, has been largely cyclical and nonstructural. you cited the fact that job losses were widespread across industries and occupational to cite a went on construction manufacturing and other cyclically sensitive industries that were hard hit, as well. continue to believe that this is the result of cyclical factors? >> i do continue to think that.

most of the increase we have seen and the decline we have portion maya small be related to structural issues, and there may be some reduction in structural mismatch. , andecovery is preceded mainly we have seen the decline in cyclical unemployment. members of the committee every theirmonths and offer personal views as to what a longer run normal unemployment rate is. it is a range of opinion that was at the fomc. it range from five percent to six percent. we remain well above that. some broader measures of the labor market overfocus on the unemployment rate.

the degree of involuntary part-time employment remains exceptionally high at five percent of the labor force. broader measures of unemployment are even more elevated, relative to normal and standard unemployment rates. there is an unusually high incidence of long spells of unemployment. via number of measures, our economy is not back, and the labor is not back to normal. >> the chair recognizes the chairman from alabama for five minutes. >> thank you. last week the governor appeared before the committee and said ownership issues was at the top of the issue for

the interagency working group. what additional information do you need to resolve the clo issue and clarify how legacy securities will be treated under volcker? >> this is something a number of inking organizations have asked the regulators to look at. regulators recently issued a , and this is something there to rallying gauged in looking at. i will have something on that reasonably soon. >> i was going to ask you, how soon do you think we can expect you to issue some guidance? >> i don't have a definite -- >> but using maybe soon? >> hopefully. theo you know what remedy

group is suggesting? >> i do not. this is something they will have to look at. >> do you agree that this is something that needs to have some sense of urgency to address? >> it is certainly something that the regulators will look at and should look at. ,> the fed has long suggested and i know your response mentioned this, has held review that a large portion of the recent decline in the labor force participation rate has been attributed to cyclical factors, which would become structural if unaddressed. therefore, because you , it is partyclical of the reason for aggressive quantitative easing. and let me put this up. that is the philadelphia fed's recent unemployment study.

if you look at that, you can see 1) there is evidence that there may be a smaller gap between full employment and current appointment then we previously expected. let me just read. almost 80% of the decline in precipitation since the first quarter is accounted for by an increase in nonparticipation due to retirement. ins implies the decline unemployment rate since 2012 is suggesting, at least to me that the decision to leave the force