of course, cable bills are going up and up and up. if there is a solution that allows consumers to continue to pay reasonable, affordable rates for internet service, i think that would be the best course. coversaul barbagallo many issues including topics of open internet for bloomberg. thank you for your time. guest: thank you. host: coming up, we go to the session of the house of representatives. we take you there now. the speaker pro tempore: the house will be in order. the chair lays before the house a communication from the speaker. the clerk: the speaker's rooms, washington, d.c. november 13, 2014. i hereby appoint the honorable cary l. bentivolio to act as speaker pro tempore on this day. signed, john a. boehner, speaker of the house of representatives. the speaker pro tempore: pursuant to the order of the house of january 7, 2014, the chair will now recognize

members from lists submitted by the majority and minity leaders for morning hour debate. the chair will alternate recognition between the parties with each party limited to one hour and each member other than the majority and minority leaders and minority whip limited to five minutes. but in no event shall debate continue beyond 11:50 a.m. the chair recognizes the the gentlewoman from california ms. elosi, for five minutes. ms. pelosi: thank you he very much, mr. speaker. i'm here to join the distinguished delegation from illinois, especially congresswoman bustos, who represents the district in congress that was once magnificently also represented

by congressman lane evans. so it is with great sadness that i come to the floor to join his colleagues, congresswoman jan schakowsky, conman danny davis, who served with him, congressman louis gutierrez and others who will be here. thank you, congresswoman bustos, for bringing us together to honor the life and service and leadership of lane evans who passed away this month at the age of 63. he was the ranking member on the veterans' affairs committee and served our veterans so well. he served our country in uniform. he served our country in the congress. he served our country in the community. he was just a great person and we were honored to call him colleague. many of us privileged to call him friend. the son of a firefighter and nurse, lane evans was born and raised in the district he represented here for 24 years. from his service in the marines, he was proud of that, to his work as an attorney with

the western illinois legal assistance fund, to his time in the house, lane spent his life fighting for those who could not fight for themselves. each and every day lane evans fought to strengthen the middle class and expand the ladders of opportunity that define the american dream. he stood strong and resolute against efforts to privatize social security. that was one of his fights here. congressman as a vietnam era veteran, who served on okinawa, lane took the struggles of our military's families -- military families personally. especially fitting that we honor lane today and this week as we observe veterans day for he was one of the house's most dedicated legislators, those who served our country in uniform, and a leader in the veterans' affairs committee. from that position as ranking member on veterans' affairs committee, lane worked rerentlessly to ensure veterans

of all generations would receive the support and benefits they deserve. championing veterans with posttraumatic stress disorder and traumatic brain injury, instrumental in placing legislation to assist veterans exposed to agent orange. on the subject of posttraumatic stress distoward and traumatic brain injury, lane had whatever symptoms he had of his service to our country. and as the ranking member he traveled the country. i had the privilege on a number of occasions to welcome him at fort myly, our veterans' hospital in san francisco. the way he connected with the veterans because he understood, he shared their pain, literally. shared their pain and he fought for all kinds of research into -- whether it was -- hidden injuries of war that we now know so much more about. in that hospital we had not only -- met the needs of our veterans, but we had tremendous

research whether it was about parkinson's or other traumatic brain injury. he was a champion for our veterans, military families, hardworking people across america. many of us who had been invited -- so proud of his district, and many of us had the privilege of being invited there to join his constituents in honoring him. and it was just an all american experience to see people from all walks of life honoring this great man and of course his colleagues from the military being a very important part of it. diagnosed with parkinson's in 1995, congressman evans continued to serve the people in his district for almost another 12 years. he was determined to make a difference and help create a better world for the next generation. and he surely has left our country stronger for having served it. he was a pioneer in terms of the hidden wounds of war for

our soldiers. today we remember his courage, his commitment, his vision, his beautiful smile, his lovely personality, his gracious being his strong commitment to our vets. we hope it's a comfort to his brothers and loved ones that so many here in this body and around the world warn their -- mourn their loss, pray for them, but feel very strength -- we feel very strengthened as a country because of the lessing -- blessing of lane evans' life to us. the i thank congresswoman bustos for bringing us together for honoring this great man and it's my privilege to join the members of the illinois delegation and other members who will be on the floor to honor lane. he was a proud son of illinois. that's for sure. i remember seeing him so proud of his district, of his constituents. and they were all in turn as we are proud of him. my time back?

the speaker pro tempore: the gentlewoman yields. ms. pelosi: i yield my time. thank you, mr. speaker. the speaker pro tempore: the gentlewoman yields. the chair recognizes the gentleman from new jersey, mr. lance, for five minutes. mr. lance: thank you, mr. speaker. i rise today to honor the life of dr. clement alexander price. a shining figure in new jersey society and culture. a respected professor and historian, and a beloved family member and friend who died last week and leaves behind an extraordinarily distinguished record of public service. dr. price was a true ambassador for his beloved newark. our state's largest city. he was a widely respected

public intellectual whose eloquence and wisdom helped heal a city at a crossroads, educate the next generation of civic leaders, and shape the decisions that have advanced new jersey. a native of the then segregated washington, d.c., dr. price rose to receive degrees from the university of bridge port and from rutgers, the state university of new jersey, and spent his life in helping to transform america to a brighter, fairer, integrated society. as a board of governors distinguished service professor at rutgers newark, dr. price's gift as a teacher were valued by a reds of students faculty and administration whose respected and expertise and energy.

dr. price was an accomplished author and the state's foremost authority on african-american history. he wrote freedom not far a distant, a documented history of afro americans in new jersey and other works that explored the history of race and culture in newark and in new jersey. he most recently co-authored "slave culture," a documentary collection of the slave narratives from the federal writers project. dr. price was also a major presence on the civic stage. president obama appointed him as chair of his transition team for the national endowment for the humanities, and as vice chair of the advisory council of historic preservation. he was newark's official historian. he chaired the new jersey state

council of the arts. he was a trustee for the fund of new jersey. the newark public library, the geraldine r. dodge foundation, the newark education trust and the save ellis island foundation. he was chief historical consultant for the jewish museum's exhibition, bridges and boundaries, african-americans and american jews. co-founded the marian thompson wright lecture series, the oldest, largest, most prestigious black history month event in the state and was a member of the scholar riyadh advisory committee to the national museum of african-american history and culture, smithsonian institution, which is currently being built here on the mall in washington. . dr. price is survived by his wife, who is widely respected for her outstanding leadership for almost a generation as

director and c.e.o. of the newark museum, our state's greatest museum. my wife and i are grateful to have known clement price. we and the people of our state mourn his untimely passing. we extend our deepest sympathy to mary sue and to his legions friends and admirers in new wark, in new jersey, and across the -- newark, in new jersey, and across the united states. when he last visited me on capitol hill several months ago, he was, as usual, filled with optimism and good cheer. on behalf of the congress of the united states, i celebrate the distinguished life of dr. clement alexander price and service to the nation. mr. speaker, i yield back the balance of my time. the speaker pro tempore: the gentleman yields back. the chair recognizes the gentleman from illinois, mr.

gutierrez, for five minutes. gutierrez: -- mr. gutierrez: we have not been back in d.c. for a full 24 hours and the immigration shin nan gansz have already begun. republicans even a few unhelpful democrats have been saying the president should not take executive action on immigration and should not act yet as if his intention to use his executive power under existing law is a surprise. david axlerod, safe in the confines of the university of chicago, has no sense of urgency because of none his family members or neighbors are facing deportation. but it's a little different on my side of chicago where people live in nearly constant fear that a loved one or friend will be detained and then strapped into an airplane for deportation. my chicagoans have been waiting for the congress to act and take action for over a decade. polish, ukrainian, irish, and mexican have been waiting. gentleman make cans and filipinos, they have been waiting for family members to get visas and backlogs that

stretch for 20 years because congress refuses to act. and they have been heartbroken by laws that say on the one hand they can apply for a green card because they are married to a u.s. citizen, but on the other hand, they must wait in exile outside the country away from their husband or wife, their loved one for 10 years in order to get that green card. 200,000, 300,000, 400,000 deportations a year. these statistics represent people. people disappearing from their churches, from their kitchen tables, from parent-teacher conferences. why? because congress is doing nothing to make it stop or make any progress towards an immigration system based in reality and common sense. where people come legally with visas rather than smugglers. now the g.o.p. conference in the house is saying after a decade of delay a decade of defineding the american people and demonizing immigrants they are so anxious to work on immigration reform. but there's just one thing stopping them.

the president. the one thing preventing republicans from taking action, they say, is that the president may also take action to keep families together and address the destructive nature of deportation. here's how one commentator in atlantic mag described it. -- magazine described it. if obama action is so absurd. boehner killed the hostage long ago. now he's hoping that if he pretends it's still alive no one will notice the corpse lying on the floor, end quote. to put it another way, it's a little late for the mayor of chernobyl to say he's worried about someone poisoning the well. the president stood right there and said if this congress fails to act on important national priorities, he will use his pen within current law to do so. republicans heard him just as well as i did. republicans had more than two years to draft a bill and a year to schedule a vote on the senate bill, and i do not see one scheduled today, tomorrow, or next week.

and i doubt before this congress expires will we see a bill scheduled. let's just look at the record. republicans said we can't do immigration unless it's done piecemeal. or we can't do immigration unless people are denied citizenship. or we need more border security spending or a parole officer assigned to each immigrant who gets to stay and work. every democrat from the president of the united states on down, all the way to me said yes, yes, and yes. compromise and progress are more important than gridlock and making every democratic constituency happy. governing means when democrats say yes to republican demands, republicans actually move forward and we work together. but none of that happened despite the door being opened. the table being set, and democrats saying in effect republicans can order anything off the menu. and yet here we are with no action, no vote, and the republicans threatening to double down on no action if the president acting within the

letter and spirit of the laws passed by this congress takes action to help the nation. the president will act as he should, boldly, broadly, and soon to help people. and when he acts, tens of millions of our fellow american citizens will support him. why? because they care more about justice and prack at this cality -- practicality than they do the blame game a policy based on driving out 10 million immigrants is neither a sensitive one nor one we should be spending billions of dollars. the president will act because presidents before him have acted to solve immigration problems when congress acted too slowly. the president will act because he believes that the american people do, that families are more important and children should be raised without the government coming along and ripping their mommy and daddy away from them. i'm tired of manufactured excuses for inaction. the u.s. congress can still debate, vote, and pass an immigration law if it wants to. the best way to get it done will be if leaders on both sides of the aisle work together. .

if you don't like it then do something. there is nothing in your way ut yourself. the speaker pro tempore: the gentleman's time has expired. the chair recognizes the gentleman from pennsylvania, mr. thompson, for five minutes. mr. thompson: thank you, mr. speaker. mr. speaker, when you first provided the privilege, honor of representing people from home and you come to washington, the very first decision you make is probably one of the most important decisions and that is who your chief of staff will be. today i'm blessed to stand here to recognize a man who i think is among the best of the chiefs who've served any member of congress. i rise today to recognize the distinguished career of jordan clark who has served as my chief of staff and is retiring from the house this month. jordan is a man with a deep love of politician, public policy and people, including his -- politics, public policy

and people, including his wife and their seven children. a one of a kind personality with wit as sharp as his public service is long, jordan will be arly missed by his colleagues. -- he at with a unique took his wisdom from the home to here. before beginning his career in washington, he served in the united states army. he served his commission after completing infantry office school and was assigned to the kennedy center in fort bragg, north carolina, where he served in warfare and psychological surveillance. he served for three years as a captain and company commander in the maryland national guard. following jordan's service in uniform, he began a career in washington with the united states department of labor, creating employment and opportunities for veterans. because of his efforts, he was

assigned to the president's veterans commission to coordinate job programs between federal agencies and the private sector and was chosen by the secretary of labor to participate in the department's career management program. jordan later was hired of chief of staff to former united states congressman joseph mcdade. at the time he was pennsylvania's 10th congressional district representative who was also a senior member of the house committee on appropriations. in the house, he also served as a staff member on the house government operations and small business committees where he played an integral role in establishing the first white house conference on small business. following the opec oil embargos, jordan accepted a position in the office of the secretary of energy and was responsible for the administration of the country's conservation and renewable energy programs. during this time he helped develop the department's technology transfer program, promoting the sharing of research and information between the federal government, the private sector institutions and corporations. he was also the first department of energy official to visit brazil for the purpose

of evaluiating its ethanol programs and productions. following his time in the energy department, jordan served as c.e.o. of communitypath.com, a homeowner advocacy group and successor of the united homeowners association, which he founded. before finding the u.h.a., he was director of the operations and assistance vice president for the congressional relations or the 180,000-member national association of home builders where he was an industry model of grassroots advocacy. he served as chief of staff to representative johnny peterson, my predecessor, until his retirement in 2008. he served as staff member in the house appropriations committee which he coordinated efforts to eliminate the 24-year-old codge moratorium of oil and gas production in the outer continental shelf. having worked with jordan in

various capacities over the years i've come to respect his work ethic and judgment. he knows the needs facing our men and women in uniform. he's an expert in energy policy. the birthplace of the oil industry in 1859 and today home of the emergent marcellus shale. he understands the fifth district as diverse a geography of its residents and economy. mr. speaker, i could not have made a better choice for chief of staff. i know i speak for generations of close friends and colleagues when i say thank you, jordan clark, for decades of committed public service and pursuit of a stronger nation. we wish you and your family the very best in the road ahead. thank you, mr. speaker, and i yield back the balance of my time. the speaker pro tempore: the gentleman yields back. the chair recognizes the gentleman from oregon, mr. blumenauer, for five minutes. thank you, mr.

speaker. there were many close elections across america last week, but there was one clear winner. ending our failed prohibition of marijuana and instead legalizing, regulating and taxing adult use. alaska and the district of columbia voters joined colorado and washington from two years earlier with strong votes to legalize. nowhere was that more emphatic than my home state of oregon. marijuana legislation passed in oregon by a greater margin than it did in washington, colorado. it got more votes than our united states senator jeff hurricanely who was overwhelmingly re-elected, and this was a low turnout nonpresidential year which experts predicted would depress the vote. in a few minutes i'll be joined in a press conference with eleanor holmes norton whose constituents resoundly approved

legalization and will make the case that congress needs to stay out of the way of its implementation. gerald polis, who's been my partner in efforts of modernizing and reforming marijuana laws will give us a snapshot of the progress in colorado two years after legalization. and congressman dana rohrabacher, from california, the first state to legalize marijuana 18 years ago, has been a tireless champion of the congress not interfering of the decisions of local voters to modernize and reform local marijuana laws. he's helped dozens of his republican colleagues understand and support marijuana and hemp reform. perhaps just as important as those votes that passed was one that failed. the vote to legalize medical marijuana that failed in florida. but it should be noted that it garnered 57% of statewide voters, again, in a low

turnout, nonpresidential election where many of the people showed they did not bother to vote. it got more votes than any statewide candidate in florida on the ballot this year. because it was a constitutional amendment that requires a 60% voter approval level, it was not approved at this time, but there's no question that medical marijuana is in the immediate future for floridians. if it were back on the ballot in the presidential year it will exceed the 60% threshold. in the meantime, we're going to work hard to implement the oregon law and take advantage of the next two years to learn from the experience of others and refine our approach. we will raise new revenues to help education, addiction treatment and law enforcement, and most important we have already stopped prosecuting people for items that will be legal under the law and will be

better able to protect our kids than the current vast underground black market. now congress needs to do its part. we need to act now in congress to solve two serious problems, not just for those states that have legalized adult use but the 23 states and counting that have legalized medical marijuana. a narrow reading of federal banking regulations requires that these perfectly legal marijuana businesses be on an all-cash basis. restricting them from having bank accounts is absolutely insane, unfair and unwise. if you care about money laundering or tax evasion or theft. additionally, i have legislation that would permit legal marijuana businesses to be able to deduct their business expenses from their income tax. because of the albuquerque in the law, 280-e provision -- because of the quirk in the

law, 280-e provision, it faces federal taxation that's unfair, unwise and certainly unjustified. regardless of how people feel about legalizing marijuana, these businesses are here and here to stay. assing h.r. 2240 and h.r. 2652 will help treat this emerging sector of the economy fairly and further protect the public. i'm hopeful that as the reality of these elections and future changes sets in we'll be able to do a better job of permitting them to operate and allow this rapidly emerging area of commerce to serve the public and to thrive. the speaker pro tempore: the gentleman yields back. the chair recognizes the gentlewoman from tennessee, mrs. black, for five minutes. mrs. black: thank you, mr. speaker. mr. speaker, i rise today to call attention to the disturbing remarks that have recently surfaced from one of the key architects of obamacare.

it is no secret that obamacare was built on broken promise after broken promise. millions of americans' insurance plans have been canceled, they have lost their access to their doctors and their hospitals and instead of reducing premiums by $2,500 like the president promised, premiums are skyrocketing across our nation. and now we have seen one of the key designers of the cari champion candid -- designers of the affordable care act talk about getting this law passed in the first place. indeed, mr. gruber bragged about the lack of transparency involved in the process of passing this 2,000-page bill, even gaming the bill so it could not be scored properly by the congressional budget office. mr. speaker gruber refers to, and i quote, the stupidity of the american voter, closed quote, as a necessary component

to getting obamacare passed and signed into law. this is outrageous, and on behalf of my constituents of tennessee's sixth congressional district and americans across this country, i reject this assertion from one of obamacare's key architects. the american people are much wiser than this. after all, at no point in time has obamacare been popular with the public. before it was even passed, the american people did everything they could to stop it. even electing a republican senator in a blue state of massachusetts to be the deciding vote against it. but the democrat majority maneuvered their way around the will of the people, passing it anyway. and despite the underhanded efforts of this law's designer, it was still unpopular with the american voters when it passed. the law has remained unpopular till this day and dozens upon dozens of democrats lawmakers that were responsible for its

passage has lost their jobs since its passage. american voters aren't stupid, as obamacare designer says. to the contrary, they have repeatedly raised their objections to this government takeover of our health care system. in fact, a majority of americans still say they wish that obamacare had never passed. and that's why as recently as last week, majorities in both the -- both chambers of congress to washington to dismantle this malicious boondoggle. obamacare is the worst piece of legislation to be passed in a generation. the law is such a mess it may collapse under a review by the supreme court next year. the american people get this. even if the law's designers do not. that is why they continue to send my colleagues and i to washington to fight to protect them from this disastrous law.

thank you and i yield back. the speaker pro tempore: the gentlewoman yields back. the chair recognizes the gentlewoman from illinois, mrs. bustos, for five minutes. mrs. bustos: thank you, mr. speaker. mr. speaker, i proudly rise today to honor the legacy of former congressman lane evans, who passed away just this past week. . lane evans served the district i now have the privilege of serving myself. and he served with it honor, dignity, humility, and hard work for more than two decades. a moo reason corps veteran himself, lane evans with a steadfast champion for our men and women in uniform. a veteran of the vietnam war era, he served on the house veterans' affairs committee from the time he arrived in washington to rise to the position of ranking democratic member, a post he held for a decade. lane evans' record on behalf of veterans earned him praise and

respect from veteran service organizations and his colleagues on both sides of the aisle. i urge my colleagues to join me in honoring the life and legacy of former congressman lane evans by designating the department of veterans affairs community based outpatient clinic located in my congressional district in galesburg, illinois, the lane a. evans comminet based outpatient clin -- community based outpatient clinic. i first got to know lane when i was a young newspaper reporter covering our region. lane was always warm, friendly, and accessible, and as a rookie reporter i always appreciated that. i interviewed him many times about a variety of topics. while he was young and with his trademark boyish haircut, his quiet courage and drive made him seem older than his age. through my interactions with him over the years and with those who worked with him and those who he touched through service, i learned a lot about the man and what he stood for.

a proud native of rock island, the son of a firefighter, and a nurse, and an alderman high chool and graduate, lane truly represented everything that is right about public service. he will be sorely missed by all those he touched, but his legacy of service will never be forgotten. the dedication of the veterans facility in the heart of the district he represented is a fitting tribute and acknowledgement of his career long fight to ensure all veterans get the care and the benefits that they have earned and deserve. thank you and i urge my colleagues to join with me in supporting this bipartisan legislation to honor the memory of lane evenings -- evans. i yield back the balance of my time. the speaker pro tempore: the gentlewoman yields back. the chair recognizes the gentlewoman from florida, ms. ros-lehtinen, for five minutes. ms. ros-lehtinen: thank you,

mr. speaker. we are now just 11 days away from the november 24 deadline for the iran nuclear negotiations. president obama and the p-5 plus one have fallen for owe hani's stall tactics, despite having every reason to suspect that iran was never serious about a deal. and that is precisely why it is imperative that congress use the mechanisms at our disposal to prevent the administration from making any nuclear agreement with iran that seeks to go against our national security interest. the administration and the p-5 plus one started with a we can't and that has only gotten weaker. that is precisely why the iranian lee good morning, america feels embolden to make proclamations that it will never agree to stop its enrichment. and why it insists that he has a right to enrich and that it

must be part of the final agreement. just the past few days, the u.n. agency that is tasked with monitoring iran's nuclear program and ensuring its compliance with the joint plan of action, has said the iaea has said that iran refuses to answer questions about its nuclear program and that it is impeding its investigation into the possible military dimensions of the program. this is amazing. a former iaea chief inspector said recently that he believes that iran lied about the number of advanced centrifuges that it possesses. and iran itself has confirmed that it has tested a new centrifuge that could speed up its enrichment process even further. yet the administration is so desperate to get us to a yes that it will overlook these

very serious and dangerous transgressions. the president has also failed to include in the negotiations tehran's lipids program, its support for -- ballistic missile program, it's support for terror worldwide and its abysmal human rights letter record. the supreme leader is calling to fight against israel and it calls for the democratic jewish state to be eliminated. had the administration come to congress before it mistakenly entered into these discussions and asked us what we needed to see for an acceptable deal, we would have said, keep the sanctions against the iranian regime. keep the sanctions and threaten to even expand them. we would have kept the only leverage we had against the regime until it agreed to abandon its enrichment and other illicit activities. but the president opted to not

do that. and instead mistakenly eased the sanctions, injecting money into the iranian economy and giving away our leverage and he still doesn't look to us for any input. mr. speaker, the administration's idea of consultation is a one-way street. it comes to brief us and our staff on the iran nuclear deal, but it isn't interested in hearing our input. and having that reflected in its approach to the negotiations with iran. mr. speaker, congress must not allow this administration to continue to circumvent us and ignore our concerns about this weak negotiating position. we have been saying from day one that this approach was a mistake and that the joint plan of action was a signal that the administration has conceded on the enrichment aspect of the iran nuclear program. iran has already everged as the clear winner in this whole charade and the p-5 plus one

nations, especially the united states, look more foolish, more pathetic, and weaker than we did when the north korean regime implemented these same tactics. if the president continues to ignore our warnings on signing a nuclear deal that we believe goes against u.s. national security interests, then it is incumbent upon us and congress to take firm action. simply put, we must take action and get serious about preventing iran from obtaining a nuclear weapon, and that means ensuring that iran cannot enrich any uranium at all, and that it must dismantle its nuclear infrastructure. and we must start right now. by sending an unambiguous message to the administration that we will not accept any deal that leaves aran with even the slightest capability of producing a nuclear weapon. thank you, mr. speaker.

i yield back. the speaker pro tempore: the gentlewoman yields back. the chair recognizes the gentlewoman from illinois, ms. schakowsky, for five minutes. ms. schakowsky: thank you, mr. speaker. in 1982 in the state of illinois, a 31-year-old man announced his candidacy for the united states congress from the 17th congressional district. his name was lane evans. he was a marine veteran and a young legal aide attorney helping poor people in his home community, and it was viewed initially as kind of a suicide mission that he was not going to be able to win. but some of us decided that we were going to get involved in that campaign even though we weren't necessarily from his district, and gathering with people who supported him from his area, ran a campaign that elected the first democrat since the civil war from that

area. a young man who impressed the people of his district with his incredible modesty, but also clarity. lane evans was so clear that represent was to the ordinary people of that section of western illinois to represent unions and veterans and poor people and to be their voice in the united states congress. it turned out to be one of the most important elections in my view in history. certainly in the history of the state of illinois. lane served for 25 years in the congress. again, this is a district that was considered a swing district, but year after year election after election, lane evans would be elected with very wide margins. lane evans was fearless. he would stand up for what was

right even when those -- some of us would say, lane, are you sure? this may not go over so great in your district, what do you think? he would look at us and say absolutely. this is the right thing to do. i don't have any qualms about it. and he would vote his conscience and people respected that. whether they totally agreed with every vote or not. lane evans was the first member, maybe danny davis the second, in our delegation to endorse for senator a young barack obama. and lane proudly brought him to western illinois and was always a great supporter. when barack obama won his election for president in 2008, he sat next to lane evans who was already somewhat debilitated by parkinson's disease, a disease that finally took his life after two

decades, holding his hand and telling him that if it weren't for lane evans that barack obama wouldn't be president of he united states of america. he was diagnosed with parkinson's disease almost two decades ago. lane evans lived so modestly. i think some people have impressions of members of ngress as having drivers and black limousines or something. lane evans lived exactly like the ordinary person in his district. as his funeral procession led through the city, we went down in rock island, lane evans way, it was a neighborhood, very modest middle class, i would even say working class, homes. that's where lane evans grew up and that's where he -- his heart and his mind always were.

lane evans was honored by the marines as he was leaving congress with the tattoo that they do, an amazing performance, and then an honor for lane. lane, as a vietnam-era veteran, was the first really to talk about agent orange. and the impact that it had on the long-term health of many of our vietnam veterans. and finally, to get care for our veterans for agent orange. he was one of the early people to understand the unseen injuries of ptsd and to call attention to that as ranking member on the veterans committee. he was such an inspiring person. such a fearless fighter for the middle class for veterans. and it is apt that we now name the v.a. clinic in galesburg, illinois, in the 17th

congressional district, for congressman lane evans. it is part of his legacy, but only part of his legacy. for many of us we will always believe that because of lane evans it is good politics as well as good policy to stand up for the principles that you believe in. for a just society, for an equal society. lane evans also, and i'm sure danny davis will talk about that, before i was elected to anything, we went to el salvador. so lane evans' sense of justice extended beyond the borders of the united states of america to major conflicts in central america. lane evans will be sorely missed but ever remembered. the speaker pro tempore: the gentlelady's time has expired. the chair recognizes the gentleman from illinois, mr. davis, for five minutes. mr. davis: thank you, mr. chairman. mr. chairman, i'm proud to join with my colleagues in paying

tribute to former congressman lane evans to convey condolences to his family and friends, and to urge the naming of a v.a. outpatient clinic in galesburg, illinois, in his name and in his honor. i had come to know and revere representative lane evans long before i became a member of congress. as a matter of fact, he was known not only in the area that he represented, but throughout illinois and especially among individuals who considered themselves to be political progressives. as a matter of fact, i had the good fortune to travel with lane and a group to el salvador under his leadership and under the sponsorship of a group at the time known as people to people. as a matter of fact, in that

same group was representative jan schakowsky, and that is where i felt that i really got to know jan and her husband, bob. lane evans spent most of his adult life in public service except for the time he was in college or law school. . not only did he purported himself during his tenure, but aid also was a legal attorney, that is an attorney who works specifically to represent those who otherwise would not have had any legal representation. after being elected to congress in 1982, he established himself as a strong voice for veterans

and championed other progressive causes. during his entire time in congress, he served on the veterans' affairs committee and rose to the position of ranking member. lane gave us his physical and mental capabilities until he could actually give no more. that is he would often come to sit, rely able to sometimes barely able to walk in. a time when others would have given up and say i can't do this any more, lane did us proud. therefore, i'm proud to join in this tribute and i'm proud to support the naming of the v.a. medical facility in galesburg, illinois, as the lane a. evans

community-based outpatient clinic. lane is absolutely deserving of this honor, and i've never, ever known anyone who worked as ng and as hard as lane did with his illness, and he simply orked, as they sometimes say in christian churches, until his days were done. lane, i'm proud to have known you, proud to have served with you and proud to call you my friend. mr. speaker, i yield back the balance of my time. the speaker pro tempore: the gentleman yields back. pursuant to clause 12-a of rule 1, the chair declares the house in recess until noon today.

passed earlier this year in response to falsification of medical records and long wait times at v.a. facilities. several v.a. officials testifying at the hearing which we join now live in progress. >> to process my application, i got to be working so i'm going

to find a job somewhere else. so what are you doing to be competitive within the hiring environment for these medical professionals? >> a couple of things. one, we know we got extensive opportunities to streamline our iring processes with providers . bob mcdonald recently approved increased salary ranges for providers to be more competitive to retain great talent. i'm aware instances on a case-by-case basis across the country where particularly for example with nurses we've done and did market surveys to justify changing salary ranges in that market area. we're looking now at doing that same process all across the country in every market to ensure that in fact what we got are salary ranges that are competitive. we're taking a hard look at the credentialing process and in

fact we'll move to the same system that department of defense uses for documenting credentialing so we'll work very transparently between the two systems. no doubt we got opportunities to streamline. the other thing that we've been doing is -- as part of the push for accelerating care is to accelerate our hiring activity. oftentimes we wait until the position's vacant and then we study it for a while, we bring it to some kind of a board and then the board finally decides in its months before we post the position. now particularly for certain positions hire in a turnover so we're already out there recruiting in anticipation of the turnover. we looked specifically at hiring activity during the second half of tween. the months from april through september, and i think most of it happened in the last four months of the year. net increase in nurses, 1,700,

600 net increase in doctors, 700 net increase in schedulers all across the organization. so material improvement, meaningful improvement there in the staffing levels, and we will keep after that. but to your point, we got continued room to improve in the process. >> thank you. my second question goes to the choice program. i know that you're sending out the choice cards now. my concern is that a lot of rural veterans have post office boxes and what i'm hearing is that a letter is first sent to them, they have to verify their post office box. here's the problem in my district. i think there's an assumption they have to go pick up a utility bill, but in my district we have thousands of veterans who don't have running water or electricity. they rarely go to their post office box because there's nothing there. what are we doing specifically to reach out to those veterans who have post office boxes and let me just say that v.s.o.'s

have offered to help reach these veterans, actually physically go out to their homes. so i'd like your thoughts and comments about that. >> sure. we're actually in the process of sending letters to all of the veterans whose address, post office box address, would suggest they may reside more than 40 miles from the nearest v.a. medical facility, offering them several different -- as easy as possible ways in order for them to give us their residential address so we can determine their access to the benefit under the choice program. i had not considered instances where veterans don't go to their post office box or the opportunity for us to enlist the help of v.s.o.'s, that's a wonderful idea and we'll pursue that. >> thank you very much. i yield back my time. >> thank you. mr. bilirakis, you're recognized. >> thank you, mr. chairman. i appreciate it very much.

thank you, mr. secretary for your attendance and your testimony. as some of $5 million was appropriated in the v.a. reform bill to increase the hiring of physicians and other medical staff to improve v.a.'s physical infrastructure. however, no report has been given to congress, to my knowledge, by the v.a. on how the department intends to use the funds. without the proper staffing assessment, how does the department know how many positions and which facility will yield optimal benefits seeking the quality of care they've earned and deserve? >> sure. i think we have shared a preliminary information with your staff on our intentions for the spend plan. but we will be sharing a formal plan with you as soon as that is ready. >> when do you anticipate that being ready? >> probably within the next couple weeks here it should be finalized, i think. we're putting a document

together that not only has the plan but kind of exactly what each of those line items entails and some information about it so it's more than just looking at a spreadsheet. the -- we currently have plans to hire about 9,600 staff with that money. some of the money is for staffing. some of the money is set aside when .-type things so you hire a new person they have to have a work station to sit at. when we have new space we have o put, you know, lans, wans, cabling and stuff in there. and then the balance is really for leases and n.r.m. projects and those kind of things. but we plan to hire about 9,600 staff across the country. we've gone through a very detailed process of literally reaching out to each medical center asking them to look at

what additional staff they need or space, for that matter, to improve access and specifically how it will improve access and then that plan has been aggregated at a national level. >> how far along are you with that? have you reached out to every medical center? >> that research is done and it's being put together in a final plan that's in draft form right now. >> who makes the determination as to what staffing, the regional director, which staffing is needed as far as services provided? >> we've asked the facility -- each facility to come up with that plan, that it be aggregated at the visn level, and then come back to us. >> when you mention facilities, is that hospitals, clinics? >> hospitals. the cbocs all work for the facility, right, so we asked the facility leadership to take on that project. >> ok. thank you.

mr. secretary, included in the veterans access choice and accountability act, it authorized 27 facility leases including one in pascall county, florida. authorizing these leases will ensure the timeliness for veterans to receive the care they need in my district and 17 other states around the country. while i'm encouraged that veterans in my district to have the option to visit a one-stop consolidated clinic, i'm concerned about the completion of these facilities. what is the process for v.a. to keep members who have these leases in their districts apprised of the progress of these initiatives, and what engagement with the community of these leases does the v.a. intend to conduct to ensure the necessary services will be offered at these various facilities?

>> so we have a number of leases that we are standing up. we have two that are in the works right now, and then we have a number that will be coming in f.y. 2016. we will absolutely be working through the process with the community and the stakeholders in the community both to find property in the first place and to make sure that services that are being placed there are appropriate. we have -- >> the other issue -- i happen to agree with you. it takes too long to get these out of the ground. so we looked at the typical timeline from where we are right now with an authorization in place to completion. it's as long as four, five years. i think that's unacceptable. we've already visited with o.m.b. they'll work with us on finding

ways to compress that timeline, to be able to accelerate that. we're already doing things with standardized design so we're not reinventing design to each facility. to your point, we have to work through the site selection issues because that odds an awful lot of time to the process. we got to find ways to deliver these more quickly. my guess in the private sector they'd be able to go from where we are to a completed facility in three, four years. we have to find a way to do it faster. >> thank you, mr. secretary. i want to ask you a couple questions briefly, mr. chairman. with regard to just follow-ups. will you assure me the community will have input on the location? >> yes. >> and the services provided, the future services provided? >> yes. >> you will assure me of that? >> yes. >> all right. thank you, mr. chairman. i appreciate it. i yield back. >> doctor, did you say they would be initiated in 2016 or would be finished in 2016? >> i think -- i think that

contracting action happens in 2016. we're not going to have anything out of these 27 leases, nothing is going to be -- we're not going to be seeing patients in any of those facilities in 2016. >> again, but you're going to start the contracting in 2016? >> no. looking down through the 27 leases that we've got here -- >> leases that are already way, way, way behind. >> and what we will do is work through the finalization of the requirements to inform the design process. that then sets the stage for the contracting action to commence. somewhere in there we got to get g.s.a. to delegate authority for us under these leases. they have to delegate everything. 17 of the 27 leases are actually bob g.s.a.'s authority to delegate -- are actually above g.s.a.'s authority to delegate. we got to give the contractor -- who we wind up contracting with -- the time to build the facility. >> ok.

thank you. dr. ruiz. >> thank you. thank you, mr. chairman. ranking member. our veterans have spoken and i joined them in their message in saying that anything less than the highest standard of health care that's veteran centered will not be tolerated and implementing the veterans access choice and accountability act, that must be the sole standard by which we judge ourselves. .

>> helping them navigate the system, very clear and concise, is very important. i think that creating a how-to guide and frequently asked questions and answers about how they can provide care to

veterans would be very beneficial and start putting out -- putting it out there now and standardizing that around the country. i will continue to hold these workshops in collaborating and i look forward to working with all of you so that we can create benchmarks that can be replicated throughout our country for our veterans. however, we can't recruit hysicians in areas that have shortages already to begin with. areas in rural america where that's where we need the physicians in the v.a. to begin with. in my area i represent riverside county which has the ninth largest veteran population in the country, more than 50,000 veterans reside in my district alone. but unfortunately the area where i'm from in southern california also has one of california's lowest numbers of physicians per capita. so we definitely have a

physician shortage plan. i understand part of the law is to recruit more physicians through g.m.e. programming. how do you plan to implement the new g.m.e. positions in the veterans access choice and accountability act to increase access to care for veterans in underserved areas or areas with high physician shortages to begin with like the inland empire in my county? >> i think your suggestion on moreau bust communication is a great idea. we'll take that for action. let me ask dr. tuchschmidt to talk about the g.m.e. area. >> let me start by saying that for providers in your community who would like to participate in the choice program, the 800 number actually has an option. option one. i know we all hate these things, but option one, press one if you're a veteran, two if you're a provider, three if you're someone else. they can get -- call the third

party administrators directly to get information. we are working to put together a provider information packet that will help them understand. with respect to the g.m.e., i'm actually really excited about this. 300 e a plan to stand up new resident positions in underserved areas, and particularly in areas where we need physicians. the 300 per year, this year quite frankly, i think we were all talking and were not anticipating that we would get a great response given the short timeline between now and when the academic year starts, but we got 300 potential slots, we are targeting for the next academic year, got over 400 requests for additional resident slots. so some of those may be established programs that want to expand those programs. some of them may be wanting to

start new programs. some of them may be community medical centers who want to start a family practice residency program. so we are working with those. i think the challenge is going to be for those sites to actually stand up those programs. >> i appreciate that and i appreciate you prioritizing the low physician to population ratio that exists. and it's thyme now to begin building -- time now to begin building pipelines of individuals who want to serve in the v.a.. and the place you can find those is in the military. when i was in haiti working with the 82nd airborne as a medical director for a nonprofit right after the earthquake, there were plenty of medics that were premed. in fact i wrote a letter of recommendation for several for medical school. if we can identify them early while they are in the department of defense, put them in a pipeline program into those g.m.e. slots after the medical schools that contract with the v.a. and department of defense, then those are the one

that is will be committed to providing high quality veteran centered care in our v.a. >> couldn't agree with you more. >> dr. roe. >> thank you, mr. chairman. thank you, mr. secretary, for being here. i'm just going to sort of take the theme of providing care t you-all have some work to do in your shop. let me give you an example what happened in my district recently. a g.i. doctor was hired, all cleared by the local -- cleared through the visn, and quit his job, he's waiting to be hired at the v.a., but his paperwork is at some central office, some black hole here in washington. so during this political campaign i got my staff on the phone to somewhere here in washington to get this doctor who is approved who could be seeing patients. so he goes out and gets another job during that time until the v.a. finally bum blesalong and gets him hired. those things are so frustrating

you cannot imagine how frustrating that is to see that after all this. i walk out of the v.a. hospital monday for my ceremony there. i bum knoop a veteran that doesn't even live in my district but he's driven 2 1/2 hours to get there for his appointment that he's waited four months for. he got three calls to come to that clinic appointment and he shows up that day and his doctor is not there. and the guy's got severe pain in his neck. he's spinal fusion surgery from a neurosurgeon who is a close friend of mine, the man needs an ep cure ral steroid injection. he's fuming. he has to ride 2 1/2 miles back to knoxville now. fortunately i have some friends there. i made some calls to friends of mine. and we get him to an -- these are v.a. friends i'm talking about. we then get this man appointment down in knoxville so he doesn't have to come back. that's the kind of thing that

every person hears every time you go to the v.a. my question is when is it going to stop? and that's the thing i'm so frustrated with. ruiz as dr. rue i -- did an enormous amount of time during this october period listening to the people at the v.a. i want to work with you on this. i am a primary care doctor. until you reform the primary care doctors, that's the tip of the spear, provide the care, you can't hire enough doctors, train enough doctors to ever get it done. i look what they have to go through to see a patient and what i had to go through to see a patient, and mr. michaud's not here -- i don't mean gaming the system on the private sector. the patient shows up, i take care of them, i get paid. if the v.a. will write the check i'll get paid. i look -- they have incredible teams. you guys have teams put together that i could only dream of in private practice. yet they are so bureaucratic

and slow they can't see many patients. i wish you would sit down with a private practitioner like myself and several others sitting around here and let us help you show how to do that and then use that as a metric across the country to create more efficiencies. we have a young psychiatrist here from st. louis that the psychiatrists were seeing six people a day. we can't train enough in 350 years to see the needs -- 50 years to see the needs at the v.a. i appreciate the efforts, but there is a real shakeup that needs to happen. this mid level bureaucracy that's apparently just filtered that's slowing this down, you need to get after that. i can't immanlin why it would have taken anybody but a piece of paper, a significant, to -- signature to have a doctor working. >> let me offer up a quick -- your story of the physician hiring frustrates me at least as much as it frustrates you. i run into those stories still. and do everything i can to clearway the bureaucratic obstacles that get in the way

-- clear away the brewer contractic obstacles that get in the way. -- bureaucratic obstacles that get in the way. i am deeply disappointed in the story you tell me about the veteran that came for his appointment and the doctor was not there. thank you for intervening on his behalf. i want to ask dr. tuchschmidt to comment on the third observation that you made about primary care physicians. >> let me also just say i'm the black hole in central office. i admit that much that's my job to approve those. i try and approve them immediately when they come in. but as of the beginning of this month we delegated approval out in the field up to $350,000 a year. they don't have to come to me below that level as of the beginning of this month. we have actually to your suggestion been benchmarking with keyser permanente and others and we -- keyser permanente and others, we are developing practice management

standards and tools to deploy to try and improve some of those processes. >> my time's about up. i don't want to interrupt you. you can't have physicians doing clerical work. i can't have them going out and walking out and calling to make the appointment. when i saw somebody, the most valuable time you have is the physician's time. so when someone comes in, you got to be able to put that on record, hit a button, and have somebody else do that stuff. the other thing i want to talk about, mr. chairman, 10 more seconds, is the spacing. i hear all the time that the physicians don't have enough room to work in. i can tell you as an efficient primary care provider it takes three or four rooms for me to work. i can be efficient with that. one or two rooms, you slowed me down by 30%. it does take time for a woman or man to get their clothes off. that takes time. while they are doing that you can be seeing somebody else. i was -- i had a different motivation where i was to be efficient in my practice. i don't see that in the v.a.

system. but i think you've got real problems with space and the way your clinical -- primary care people, i'm willing to work with you. >> we are in agreement with that. >> i yield back. >> thank you. ms. kuster. >> thank you, mr. chairman, thank you very much for being with us today. i wanted just a quick story that a member of my staff who is a veteran received his card last week and we were all very excited. we walked through the letter i just erans received want to make sure in terms of the volume of calls and questions because it was great to receive the card and it was nice to celebrate that for veterans day, but it was very clear that the card wasn't going to do anything until you went through the steps of eligibility and making sure you're authorized to use the card. so number one i worry a little bit about veterans that somehow think the card has some magic to it and they go to a private

provider and then end up with a big bill they didn't expect. number two, the question that was raised in a memo provided us by the staff about the co-pays and deductibles and is there sufficient communication for the veteran to understand that they may end up with a financial obligation that they would not have had if they had been seen through the v.a. and i have another question but i'd love to have someone address that. >> i'll start out and dr. tuchschmidt may want to jump in. we took great pains as you would expect with the drafting of the communication. we actually -- we also went out to v.s.o.'s and had v.s.o.s not only review it but get it in the hands of veterans and have them review it and provide us feedback. part of what you're seeing and the tension you described between they have to take some

steps to access the care that they are eligible for, this would have been someone in the 40-mile group, that's one of the reasons -- because there is a potential liability associated with co-pays. just like there is with v.a. if a veteran's out seeking care for a nonservice connected condition or they have third party insurance, different circumstances, there may be instances where the veteran is accountable for some of that cost. we have done things in interpreting the legislation and with policy decisions that we have made and regulation that we promulgated to make the operation of the choice program from the standpoint of co-pays look absolutely as close as we could possibly make it look to traditional nonv.a. care. we didn't want to set up a situation where the veteran was going, oh, well, i want care but i want to use this i don't want to use the choice card. we eliminated those obstacles.

but there are instances where the veteran could be obligated for some other cost. >> i think we have said from the get-go in designing this program we want to do the right thing by the veteran. that's number one priority. resolved at we have the issue with the v.a. could he pay. we'll set that at zero -- co-pay. we'll set that at zero at the time the veteran is being seen. we don't honestly believe we can determine what that co-pay is until after we get a statement, explanation of benefits back. with respect to third party co-payments, technically that is a contract between the patient and his or her insurance company which we have no control over. however the way we have tried to implement this, i think that most of the time we'll be able to cover that co-pay due to the way the choice payment is made. but if the patient has

expensive care, hospitalizations, procedures, has medigap insurance with a high deductible, the fact of the matter is that they may be subject to co-payments and we have done everything we can to educate v.s.o.s, our partners, and we'll be educating veterans to the fact that that is part of the way the choice program has been designed. >> i think communication and education through the v.s.o. the other question i have, and my just hearing from my colleague from new hampshire we just recognized veterans day and had a wonderful celebration, turns out we have one of the highest percentages in the country, 11% of our citizens are veterans. which is pretty incredible in terms of the service. but as you can imagine then we have a lot seeking service. and the arch program has been very popular.

i understand that the veterans access choice and accountability act allows for continuation of that, but could you address for me how that will happen. it's important for our rural veterans, and they like it. it works for them and i just wanted to get clarification in terms of how it's impacted by the choice card. >> so the legislation extended the arch program. we have extended the contract temporarily. while we are renewing the arch program. so it will remain in place essentially as it has existed in the past going forward. it >> i appreciate that. i yield back. thank you. >> mr. flores. >> thank you, mr. chairman. mr. secretary, i appreciate you joining us. i also appreciate the work that you and secretary mcdonald and the team are doing to work with congress and this committee in particular to build the v.a. for the 21st century. a few weeks ago the austin

american statesman newspaper, published an article about the visn waco center of excellence for research and returning war veterans. i'll ask the chairman if he'll introduce this for the record. i'm not trying to change subjects because we are still on the same subject. the subject is what is the underlying root cause of the issues that the v.a. is struggling with? it turns out it is a troubled culture that needs to be fixed. and that needs to have a change of personnel to do that. you're working on that. we are not necessarily happy with the direction you're going with that, but the comments have been -- that that's been discussed already. what i would like to do is talk about a couple of other things. one is, this committee and my office have requested enough data, a briefing with someone from the v.a. regarding the center of excellence between now and december 11th. i would like your commitment would you do that. the second thing is the way

that this -- center of excellence totally failed in its objective to try to find the underlying causes of t.b.i. and ptsd. and to try to help the v.a. come up with some groundbreaking research to address these critical issues that are facing today's war fighters. but it just utterly failed. not one m.r.i. was produced. in order to assist with this project. and tens of millions of dollars were wasted in the process. a whistleblower brought this to our attention. and this is where i get back to culture. that whistleblower and some of the other whistle blowers that participated in letting america know about the problems faced incredible retaliation. we heard these -- you saw the hearings we had back in the summer where when the waiting list issue came up, the bureaucracy retaliation against whistle blowers is just -- it goes beyond the pail -- pale.

i urge you to continue to work on that part of the culture as well. there should be no retaliation. they should be celebrated as people are trying to make the system better. so two things and i'll be brief. one is i'd like your commitment to have that briefing for the -- this particular center of excellence, and, two, you will remember that we need to fix the culture of retaliation as part of our overall attempts to fix the culture at the v.a. >> we'll commit to having that briefing to you before the 11th of december as you have requested. two, i have said repeatedly and continue to say we will not tolerate whistleblower retaliation. i worked very closely with carolyn lerner the special counsel of the united states first on restoring employees who have been the object of retaliation and enshuring that they are -- ensuring they are basically made whole in that process. and coming in immediately behind that through the much maligned office of accountability review, to

conduct the investigations into the retaliatory behavior to ensure we are holding those individuals accountable for that behavior. i agree with you that they should be put up on a pedestal and i have agreed to participate. i think it's the third or fourth of december with the office of special counsel where they are going to be recognizing two whistle blowers from phoenix and i will be joining them in that forum. >> thank you. i yield back. >> mr. o'rourke. >> thank you, mr. chairman. mr. secretary, i wanted to first start on a positive note. i hear from a number of veterans in my community that go to the v.h.a. clinic in el paso that they receive exemplary care in a timely fashion, and that more importantly i'm beginning to hear from veterans who did not used to receive that care in a timely fashion and they are telling me they are now able to get appointments. so i appreciate your leadership and the v.a. -- >> we both have been working on that for a while. >> that's right.

your visit to el paso had an impact. i appreciate that. i want to follow dr. roe's lead in using an anecdote to describe the challenges that remain. i was recently at the v.a. and while there and asking veterans about the quality and access to care that they have been receiving, ran into a gentleman who was there for mental health care appointment. he had called the day before to confirm that appointment. i have no idea how many months in advance that appointment was made nor do i know how many miles he drove to be there. the appointment was confirmed the day before. he showed up. on the appointed day at the appointed time only to be told that the mental health care provider that he was there to see no longer worked at the v.a. and had not worked there for months. and that was obviously deeply disappointing, but what was unforgivable to me, he was then told to go back home, call back tomorrow to schedule another appointment. luckily i was there. we were able to take him up to the third floor to the

executive suite and we waited for the director to come out of the meeting and were able to obtain an appointment for him the next day. so that brings me to my question. you have 10 mental health care vacancies still in el paso despite all the good work. and to the question about getting these providers in historically underserved areas, like el paso, which had the worst wait times for existing patients in the entire country, fourth worst for mental health care, what are we doing to attract and retain those providers? you mentioned earlier that you're increasing what we are paying. we talked about g.m.e.'s. tell me more about how we are going to close the gap on mental health care. all of the e have recruitment retention efforts that we have under way for both physicians and for nurses.

with respect to physicians, we have work to get expert health care consultant, recruiters to help us bring in physicians. i think that the story that you tell about of -- tell of a patient who gets there with an appointment and doesn't have a provider is unacceptable. whether there's a vacancy and somebody left or not, there should be contingency planning t every one of our facilities. we have been communicating that. >> i would love by the numbers to understand how much more you are paying to attract somebody to a:ic like el paso. i learn when you recruit a psychologist or psychiatrist who-to-a clinic instead of a hospital they are earning less and being offered less. do we need to harmonize those levels so you're getting folks to the right place? sorry to interrupt, it brings up the more important issue, i think, of accountability. and were the anecdote i just

described happened a year ago, it would still be unforgivable, but to happen after all the scrutiny and attention and focus we brought to this issue, how are those people still there who are running the el paso v.a.? to the chairman's point and so many others who have made this, i 100% accept secretary gibson's explanation and fully believe that you are doing the right thing to ensure that once disciplinary action is taken it is sustained and not overruled and we don't reintroduce these bad actors into the system. having said that, when can we expect to see these changes? it's straining credibility for us and the american public to know that these folks responsible for such egregious malfeezence and negligence are still in their jobs. when are we likely to, within this calendar year, within the next six months? to see the firings we have been expecting.

>> i'll come back to you within 24 hours to answer your question definitively. i am aware of certain actions but i don't know exactly where we are in that process. so rather than give you a speculative answer, i would rather give you a definitive answer. i will tell you the question in my mind remains in this particular instance whether there is malfeasance or misconduct or whether we have a situation where it's a really, really tough situation and we are not bringing to bear the resource that is we need to be able to bring to bear, but i will be back to you within 24 hours with a definitive answer to your question. >> thank you. i will share that with the committee. thank you, mr. chair. >> mr. huelskamp, you're recognized. >> if i might follow up on the information request from my colleague from texas. you did say earlier not a sidge v.a. employee had been suspended without pay, is that accurate? >> suspension without pay is a

disciplinary action. i can't tell you -- i have not -- it's a disciplinary action, to take the disciplinary action -- >> i understand stood you to say earlier not a single v.a. employee had been suspended without pay, did i misunderstand that statement earlier? >> that's what i said. i said it in the context of the question about suspending in the process of a disciplinary action being involved. i have 5,600 action that is were referred to earlier -- >> if any of those v.a. employees lost their bonuses? as a result of these scandals? >> in fact, no v.a. senior executive in v.h.a. will receive a bonus in 2014. >> prospectively, has any lost their bonus? >> there was -- we had this conversation before in here. there was one instance of one employee where a bonus was paid -- rror and we were able to

will i use civilian language, claw that back. that action itself has been appealed under statute. otherwise once a bonus has been paid, it becomes the employee's property and we don't have the authority to take that property. >> has any v.a. employee been fired? have you gone through the entire process of removing an employee yet? >> yes. >> if you would provide a list, we won't know the names, but how many of those have actually lost their jobs as a result of this. i want to follow up some questions on the v.a. choice and how that was implemented. what exactly did you decide to implement that in phases? >> the fundamental concern was that if we send out nine million cards to veterans on the fifth of november, realizing that approximately 8.3 million of those have the rans would not have -- veterans would not have an immediate benefit under the act, what we would do would be to create chaos and jam the phone lines with people calling to get

explanations -- >> nobody has -- >> veterans that do have access -- >> i understand that. the folks that were waiting for months you have chosen to wait even longer. why are those that were waiting, that was the focus of so much scrutiny, why have you decided you wait longer than those that were -- >> many of those people that have been waiting have been -- we have been working those in the ordinary course of business. that's part of what accelerating access to care has been about for the last 5 1/2 months since the middle of may. >> what i'm not clear on is what is the start date when you say, ok, the clock is now starting. is that -- does that continue to move back because you have yet to start that phase? >> the start date for the group in the 40 -- >> no. >> those in the wait time, what has been posted in regulation is the fifth of december. our expectation is the start date is going to be sooner than

that. and we will post that start date within the next several days. >> if you don't get the cards out or don't officially start then, that phase just waits and waits and waits until you actually pick a start date? >> that group waits until we post in regulation to say we are now activating the 30-day wait time standard under the choice program. not necessarily wait for them to receive their card. because as i mentioned earlier we are populating the veterans -- >> not worried about when they receive the card as when they get the care. i don't remember anything in the law that said that you get to pick when the 30-day start time -- 30-day wait time becomes the start date for that second phase. >> we could have rolled this program out in such a way it would have been a disaster for veterans, and we chose not do that. >> if you're still waiting for care it's still a disaster for that veteran. one other item, this has been a

, rural local issue kansas has a very limited v.a. facility. not full services. you promised again and again to have a full-time doctor there. promised and never delivered. that's happened again and again. now you're still telling just because they have limited services if they want any services they still have to drive the six hour roundtrip to amarillo to get those services when we have a great hospital just down the street, less than a mile away, you say, no, you can't receive it there because it's limited services that are available at the v.a. clinic there. is there a reason you have chosen to say a v.a. clinic is the restriction? if you had that one in your community, all of a sudden you can't go to your local hospital and pick your doctor. can you describe how you come to that reasoning? there are vet rabs that would like to go to their local doctor and you don't have a full-time clinic there, don't have a full-time doctor, and air saying too bad, you still drive six hours for day. >> upped the statute it was very clear to the nearest v.a.

medical facility. i would ask a question -- >> mr. gibson -- >> what was congress' intent? and if congress' intent was to make it 40 miles from where -- >> it wasn't congress' intent to wait until december to take care of the wait times. >> we don't intend to wait. >> under the current law before this one passed, you had plenty of options for non-v.a. care. you could have let them go before august 6, you could have let them go to a hospital. your v.a. chose not do that. >> we had a budget in fiscal year 2014 for non-v.a. care about $6 billion. we spent it. >> do you have that authority to allow them to go to the local hospital. >> within the constraints of our budget we do. where we deem it's clinically necessary to do so. >> driving six hours, mr. gibson, you don't drive six hours for care. veterans of rural kansas do today and we have to fix that. yield back.

>> mr. walz. >> thank you, mr. chairman. deputy secretary gibson, thank you, and gentlemen for being here. i think it's important for you to hear each of our stories. we have heard this. both the bad and good that come out of it because we know our role is to improve upon what's working and to make those changes. i like my colleague, mr. o'rourke, dr. roe, had a gentleman was waiting, excessive wait time, 75 days, continued to field bad. finally one day couldn't take anymore. drove to the mayo clinic where he was told he needed immediate prostate cancer surgery. the good -- that's the bad. obviously he waited excessive wait time. the good is that we called and within six hours we had the agreement and the next day he was in for surgery. two weeks ago i was with he and his family and steve is now in recovery. the family is grateful but i'm embarrassed they are grateful to me because that veteran should have been able to do

that on their own. as long as thee stories go -- i think we know here that's one veteran whose wife called with nowhere to go called a congressional office and got action. i do think we should note the responsiveness and attitude on the -- it's a challenge. the private sector capacity, mayo clinic said it's not that he might not have waited for us in that initial appointment. it's just that there has to be a way to triage these cases that are so critical. they convinced me that those -- there's ways to do that. to make sure if it wasn't so pressing we could have put them in there. my question to you, and i think this is a conversation where -- that should be done. and this committee's doing the work it should be doing. asking how we implement that. congress' intent is an important part of this. what i'm curious about is the implementation of this law, this is one small piece, where's that intersection with the restructuring of v.a. that we know needs to be done? is it helping? is it promoting? it was meant to be a catalyst

in that direction. i don't thin think anyone on this committee thought this was the end. it was the first stefment maybe if you could articulate to me how it fits into the broader restructuring and enables us to get to that. >> i think it gets at the very essence of creating -- focusing on the veteran experience. and focusing everything we do around the veteran. so what the choice program does is it basically allows us to accelerate care using additional resources in the community. thanks to the funding that congress provided to be able to accelerate care while we are doing the internal capacity building the points that have been brought up about primary care protocols and the number of treatment rooms and compensation issues associated with physicians, and streamlining hiring practices while we are engaged in all that activity, the choice program gives us the time to be able to do that while we are still delivering the care that veterans deserve. i see that as a central part of

what we are doing. i think it's also clear that it drives us toward the more holistic view of v.a. we have been providing substantial amounts of non-v.a. care. this pushes us harder to ensure that we are maintaining the continuity of care for veterans and ensuring that veterans -- we are managing that care. that we are managing the care and delivering the kind of health care -- >> we need to figure out a way, i say all of us, this includes the v.s.o.s and how you are communicating with them. this is truly the real challenge because the ultimate cost of this and to be very clear, steve -- he believes it, too, he could have got equal care that he got at the mayo clinic for the treatment of that had he been able to get in. the question i have is, i don't think your budget would allow just for all the things if it has to go the way that this one was solved. and how will we figure out how to communicate that triage. mr. huelskamp issue is exactly

right and the same with mine n this case steve lived hours away from the nearest facility, too. it wasn't he wasn't willing to go, in the crisis situation the mayo clinic was exdoor. how are we trying to come to grips with that in an honest dialogue on both capacity -- i see it, we heard about this, i thought it was a great hearing we had where a gentleman said he looks out his window and sees four private sector hospitals and knows there's 72% capacity every day. he saw that 28% capacity that could be utilized in another way. are we getting there? >> that's an important point. what i would say is that we have traditionally been a provider of care. we make a decision when we can't provide it in a timely way to go out and buy it for somebody. what the choice program done, we are having discussions right now that are for many many people very anxiety producing. that our future is not about being a provider organization only. we are now entering a realm where we, quite frankly, are

running a health plan. where the veteran, patient, decides what happens to them and where they go and how they get care and what care they get. and this is a huge cultural shakeup quite frankly for us as an organization. and i think that we are now engaging in discussions about what does that mean for our future? what does that mean for our traditional purchase care program? the choice program if the legislation expires in three years and goes away will have bought us time to build our capacity. but it's proposing, quite frankly, much more significant -- >> i couldn't agree more. as i yield back my time, my suggestion was is on the vision of the defense, quadrennial defense review. that's what we need there. this is a small piece, but i yield back. thank you for that. >> thank you. mr. win -- wenstrup, you are recognized for knife minutes. > we were talking about the veterans choice program. where can i get information

specifically for providers that -- private sector providers that want to be providers for v.a., whether it's a hospital system -- i have had that question come to me in my district where a hospital system would like to help with the backlog, even if it's a short-term event. and also they would be willing to do it at a lower rate than the standard rates for the procedures and things that they could engage in. we gain the 800 number that have, there's a line there for both veterans but also for providers who want information. i have been -- we have been talking with the american hospital association, with a.m.a., have a meeting coming up with american hospital association specifically to try to help use those two entities to get information out to providers. any provider that wants to i'm sure can contract -- contact tricare or health net directly. i'm happy to have them contact me and i'll serve as a

functionary to make sure something happens. >> if there's something you could get to me to provide details i will share it with those who come to me in that realm. the other question i have is we are trying to do the independent assessment, how much information is being gathered or how much are we engaging with the private sector to really assess the v.a. system? >> i think the -- as i -- ioned earlier, the working with other partners in the community. they are very committed to finding people with the right competencies to do those various assessments of the there are some them that they will do. so their expertise, quite frankly, is in kind of policy and modeling. but they will have already reached out to rand corporation to do some of this work. the institute for medicine is doing part of the work.

as i said, there will be -- they have put together a group of health care industry executives from around the country to really be private sector benchmark panel to help guide, not only the assessment, they put together a set of tools that can be used in terms of when people are doing these assessments, making recommendations, how do we know what's good and what's bad coming out of this? and that group is helping to vet that. then we'll ultimately be the group of people that help craft the final set of recommendations that come out of this process. >> i think that's important. obviously we have a lot of suckciesful providers -- successful providers and systems in place in the private sector. so their input is key. thank you. i yield back. the speaker pro tempore: thank you. ms. brownley, you are recognized for five minutes. >> thank you, mr. chairman. and thank you, mr. secretary, for the work that you're doing and i know that my veterans at

home are starting to feel hopeful there is real change taking place. i appreciate all of your efforts. i wanted to ask a specific question on how the v.a. implementing section 401 and 402 and 403 and educating service members about eligibility to seek v.a. care for military sexual assault. >> we have already reached out and started it reaching out to guard units to educate them about the services that are available for military sexual trauma counseling within our organization. we have both outpatient programs and we have inpatient programs around the country. we are currently the part we struggle with most is really around the issues with active duty service members. we clearly believe it was the

intent of congress that by providing this service available through the v.a. it would be a safety valve for service members who have military sexual trauma to be able to come to the v.a. anonymously to be able to get that care. we have been in conversations with d.o.d. about how that might work. they have concerns that the care would be anonymous and that they would not have information that might reflect on the fitness for duty of active duty service members. it's really hard to try and figure out how when a patient might need to go to an inpatient unit for a come weeks of intensive therapy that they leave their active duty station and nobody knows about that. we are trying to work through those issues with the department of defense now. with the clear intention of being able to implement that part of the law in a timely

way. >> when you say you have reached out, does that include training? >> well, right now what we are -- for the training for -- >> training for all of the folks that need to know and how to present this right to be able to receive treatment. >> for guard members we have begun that work. that was the easiest part of this to put in place. the harder part of this is for the active duty people. >> on the d.o.d. side do you have a solution you are trying to work through with d.o.d.? >> we are in constant ongoing meetings with them to try and work on these issues and figure out how this will actually work. we routinely exchange medical record information. in fact, that when we would go to bill, tricare, for an episode of care, we would

submit medical record documentation. we don't believe that's what you intended. that's why we are in conversations with them to try and figure this out. i don't think we have locked everything down that we need to at this point. >> thank you. another question is regarding your process for implementing our long-term space plan. wanting to know the steps the v.a. is taking to ensure that there are periodic updates based on new data in terms of what real wait times are and the increased demand on services. and wanting to know the status, how that's going. and do we -- should we expect, are we going to receive a new updated plan during the next fiscal year? >> i would anticipate that there would be a new plan. we are doing something, i think, -- i have been in the

system for 20-something years, it would be the first time we do this. we are essentially adopting the ppbe model used by d.o.d. and other places in federal government. so for the first time this year we will be going out with a lot of planning data to every facility and asking them to begin developing requirements from the bottom up for their program. people, space, things that they need to be able to be effective and close performance gaps. i think that -- we have our enrollee help projection model which is a great actuarial tool to tell us how many people we are going to take care of, what kinds of services they need, what that is likely to cost. then we have to get to the next stem cell research saying, ok, to effect that what are the requirements necessary to do that? and what is that going to take in each place in which we deliver care? people, things, and space to be able to be effective.

and we are -- we have been piloting the tools and the process. we have been working actually with people from the department and the department v.a. office of policy and planning to do this work. and i think it's going to really fundamentally change the planning process for us in terms of trying to get to the requirements that you're talking about. >> thank you, mr. chairman. i yield back. >> thank you. mrs. walorski you're recognized for five minutes. >> gentlemen, thank you for coming today and providing answers to our questions. i wanted to take a second and publicly thank v.a. secretary mcdonald who told us when we met him that if he could be of service to reach out. he reached out in an emergency in my diction trict in the second district of indiana with a young couple. aaron and eric olson. he had been misdiagnosed in my district and his health was degenerating at rapid rate.

no diagnosis whatsoever. i called the secretary. they moved on our behalf and his family and he, too, was diagnosed with cancer. they moved him to a research center in indiana. since being diagnosed he's under treatment and he's improving and there is light tend of the tunnel. to echo what representative walz just said and some of my other colleagues, it just adds -- that kind of scenario is good and bad. we are grateful when that happens because we just saved the life of a veteran, we can't make calls on behalf in my district, 57,000 veterans and their families. it just to me sheds light on the fact to all of us and our districts in america, this is still a very, very urgent matter. this is still a five alarm fire. i think america is willing to give time and say we understand the comprehensiveness of this. they want to see action at the same rapid rate we do. iies want to pass that along. just a clarifying question.

for those seniors executives that retire during that five-day interim period, that new five day period, in lieu of possible removal. is there anything on the record to say they were slated for removal? so there's a trail that says these folks possibly left because of that? they were at least on that list. >> whether an employee resigns our retires, the proposed removal action winds up becoming a permanent part of their file. so any other federal agency if they were considering hiring this particular individual would see that as part of the file. >> my other question, which again is a follow-up from many hearings we had before us, this issue of the v.a. and i.t. i have a bill coming up that we are going to have a hearing on. the new law required technology task force to conduct a review to look at that v.a. schedulingcies tefment the northern varks technological council conducted visits at v.a. medical centers in richmond and hampton to observe the scheduling operations and

review the staff. do you consider the results of what they obtained to be representative of the entire system? i think as we have gone through e findings in the report i would say that it affirmed an awful lot of what we believe we knew already. it also reiterated a fair amount of information that was part of the booze, allen, hampton report done back in 2008. i think it was useful and helpful. it's an independent point of validation in many instances. the point that came up that dr. roe mentioned earlier about the need for treatment rooms. it was one of the things that showed up in the report. didn't have anything to do with scheduling. they were looking and saying one ever your obstacles to providing access to care you have medical facilities here that only have one treatment room for provider. we are never going to make optimal use of our providers when we have that constraint. >> can i follow up quickly

before you answer. that 2008 report is six years later, have all of the issues been addressed in that 2008 report as far as inconsistencies and recommendations? >> you mean from the 2008 -- >> if it parallels. >> no. >> why haven't they if it's been six years? >> you may or may not recall that was the report where there was a -- questions were asked back in may with other individuals sitting here about the report by and large the comment was, folks were not even aware of the existence of the report. i had not been -- hi only been here for three or four months, but -- i had only been here three or four months, that report was issued and it went in somebody's desk drawer. >> some of the hearings that have gone on since i have been here, there was a lot of information given to this committee there was no problem whatsoever with the scheduling system with the v.a. nobody ever said it was a 1985

system much the gentleman in charge of your i.t. system sat right there and said you have everything you need? resources and money, we're good to go? the answer overwhelmingly was yes. even during the bunt time -- budget time. there is a mandate in this new law, where are we with the scheduling system and this idea of mandatory compliance? >> the booze allen report went far beyond scheduling system as did the other report. >> where are we specifically? >> on the scheduling system, four different tracks, three different tracks of work that are under way right now. a whole series of patches to the existing system. we are on the tail end of that. probably within the next couple of months we'll have completed all those patches. we have let a contract for major enhancements to the existing system. those are supposed to start coming online in the spring of 205 -- 2015. a near-term solution. those also include creating the ability for us to field some

apps that have been created that will allow veterans to request appointments and one of the other apps allow veterans to directly schedule an appointment. we have to have the ability to catch it when the veteran sends it. and in parallel, we think we are literally a matter of days away from a contracting action to the -- for the acquisition of a commercial off-the-shelf state-of-the-art scheduling system. that system in all likelihood won't be up and running until sometime in 17 which is why we are doing these other things in the meantime. i should indicate, though, it's reaffirmed in the report. the schedulers that they talked to in the field said the scheduling system isn't the impediment. it's the lack of appointment slots. they basically came back and said schedulers say it's ok. we know it needs to be replaced. we know it doesn't provide the functionality we need to have. we are pressing to get that done. that's not the obstacle from the scheduler's perspective.

>> i yield back. >> ms. titus, you're recognized for five minutes. >> thank you-all for what you have been doing to try to fix these problems and implement this bill. i'd like to go back to the issue of the shortage of doctors and the private sector. this is very serious in nevada and las vegas. we are at the bottom, like 50th or 45th or something for all different types of specialists. i would like to go back to that issue. several of us worked very hard to get the provision in the bill to create the new residencies. and i heard you say that you're given 300 a year and you have already got 400 applicants. i want to be really reassured that those residencies are going to go to places where there is the need. i don't want them just to go to ucla because it's already got a great program or johns hopkins. go where the need is. the second part of that is where there is a need is also where they may not be able to

support residencies at this time. so it's kind of a double hit. that's true in las vegas where get agnew medical school, we have the new hospital. but we are not going to be able to apply this year, hopefully next year. can you explain how you're going to distribute those and how i've got a working group right now that's meeting to be sure we'll be eligible for some them, what you might recommend to that group that you look at for some of the qualifications? >> sure. we can get you -- can i get you specifically information about -- i can get you specifically information about what the requirements are so you personally have that information. i think the i tent of the law as we interpreted is those slots are to go to meet underserved areas and needs. -- not that there's a anything wrong.

i think the i tension is there. there are many community hospitals that establish family practice residencies and other residency programs that are not medical schools. we do not own residency slots. they are owned by an academic partner. those votes are -- they set up a program and get approval through the acgme for those positions. we fund them essentially. and in return those residents rotate through our institutions and we provide. so training. i think the challenge clearly is for a place that has not had a residency program to be able to recruit and retain faculty. to be able to teach. to be able to meet all the accreditation standards that acgme has for those programs. it certainly takes a critical mass of residents to be able to

meet all the work hour restrictions and everything else they have and maintain a viable program. i can certainly make sure that you get information that you can pass along. i think the best thing that you-all can do, actually, is encourage hospitals or other institutions in your districts that are interested in that to contact our office of academic affiliations to get information. >> maybe i could get somebody from the office to come meet with that group in las vegas. >> i would be happy to arrange that. >> kind of related to that, you also mentioned that you're worried about these middlemen organizations like triwest being able to find enough people in the private sector to be part of this program. i remember asking the director of that was sitting right where you are, is it going to be a problem? his exact words were, oh no, we'll ask doctors to step u they'll step up to help veterans. if they are not there they can't step up. i think that was a little

optimistic anyway. can you tell me what you're doing to monitor those groups to be sure that they are providing the services? >> we monitor today the referrals that we make to triwest and health neat through pc-3, our contract. we know how quickly they can place patients. we know how quickly or often those authorizations are returned because they can't find a provider. the good thing about the choice program. we set up pc-3 to be our preferred provider network. and triwest and health net established contracts with those providers. under the choice program you have provided i think a really good tool in terms of the provider agreement authority that we have. which allows -- the veteran will be able to choose any willing provider that meets certain criteria. they have to be medicare provider. federally qualified health center, etc., etc. once that's done, triwest or

health net will be able to reach out and get an agreement with that person for the choice program. even if the provider doesn't necessarily want to be part of the pc-3 network. i think the one issue that we have that really does need to be addressed expeditiously is the fee structure in alaska. the medicare rates will not buy much care. not many willing providers in alaska that are interested there. i know that you-all are aware of that and your attention to that in a timely way would be helpful. >> thank you. quickly, mr. gibson, as you were talking about expanding and improving and changing the v.a. as mr. walz was suggesting this is just the beginning not the end, i hope you'll look at those maps. all those different maps that divide the country up into different regions. in nevada we are split into three parts for v.h.a. and at the same time we are in with california for v.b.a.

they just don't make sense. will you look at that? >> we don't think they make sense, either. > thank you. >> dr. benishek, you're recognized. >> thanks, gentlemen, for being here this morning. 's incident o'rourke where this veteran was told to go home and call back for another appointment. just the fact that that would happen to somebody really emphasizes to me the need for change in the culture. as an employee would think that was the satisfactory thing to do to somebody who had been waiting that period of time. i know that you-all realize you got a lot of work to do to change that culture. i want to talk about a couple of specifics. i get to do colonoscopies at the v.a. i have been hearing there is till a backlog within the v.a.

how many veterans have been waiting 12 months or longer -- >> watch the rest of this hearing online at c-span.org. we leave it now as the house begins its legislative day working on several federal land exchange bills. live coverage. the speaker: the in order. the prayer will be offered today by our guest chaplain, aman, islamic society of central new jersey, madam out junction, new jersey. peace and n: lessings of allah be upon you. in the name of allah, the most gracious, the most merciful. praise be to allah, the cherisher, the sustainer of the world. the most gracious, the most

merciful master of the day of udgment. thee do we worship and thine do we seek. guide us to the safe path. the god of all the prophets and the messenger says in the koran, he does not place a responsibility on you greater than you can bear. everyone will receive the good they have earned and vice versa. let us pray. a od, bless us as we begin new day. bless this assembly. bless the people and nation it represents. o god, as this time in our

history, the challenges for our .ation and the world are many o god, grant these men and men the wisdom, the guidance and the strength to pursue compassion, justice and sound judgment. god, in your wisdom, you have placed upon them great responsibility and honor. o god, please help them with your guidance and your light. , god, improve the well being of all inhabitants of this great nation and beyond . amen. .

the speaker: the chair has examined the journal of the last day's proceedings has and announces to the house his approval thereof. pursuant to clause 1 of rule 1, the journal stands approved. pledge of allegiance will be led by the gentlelady from california, ms. hahn. ms. hahn: thank you, please join me in pledging allegiance. i pledge allegiance to the flag of the united states of america and to the republic for which it stands, one nation under god, indivisible, with liberty and justice for all. the speaker: without objection, the gentleman from new jersey, mr. holt, is recognized for one inute. mr. holt: mr. speaker, i ask my colleagues to join me in welcoming imam chabli. the imam of the islamic society

of central new jersey in south brunswick, new jersey. he has been both a friend and an ambassador of islam to me and many others in new jersey. and we are all honored that his prayer has opened this session of congress. he's a native of lebanon and attended one of the most rest tiegeous islamic institutions in the world. -- prestigious islamic institutions in the world where he received his masters in islamic cannonical law. he's been the leader since 1986 where he makes muslims and non-muslims feel welcome. the detcht of his faith and commanding dignity and warmth of his personality make him the most prominent and attractive figure ofist lam in our -- islam in our region. in aerodynamic pooh wrt public understanding of islam has grown greatly, we are fortunate to have imam chabli in our community. he's worked hard to build interfaith dialogue and public

understanding, serving as a member of the north brunswick and south brunswick diversity committee and of the regional clergy association. most recently new jersey's governor appointed him to the governor's leadership summit on diversity. he and i have a friendship and association that has lasted many years, especially since september, 2001. and i greatly value our friendship. he's the proud husband of mona and loving father of their six hildren. and the loving grandfather to seven grandchildren. through his inspiring prayer this morning, we can all gain wisdom and guidance. i yield back. the speaker pro tempore: the gentleman yields back. the chair will now entertain up to 15 requests for one minute speeches on each side of the aisle. for what purpose does the gentlelady from north carolina rise? ms. foxx: i ask unanimous consent to address the house for one minute.

the speaker pro tempore: without objection. the gentlelady is recognized for one minute. ms. foxx: thank you, mr. speaker. during a recent visit to lansing, north carolina, i stopped in rose mountain butcher shop and met its proprietor, ann rose. ann is a pioneer in the region's local foods movement delivering meat and organic produce from small farms in ash, allegheny to her community. in addition to running her farm and butcher shop, she graciously shares her extensive knowledge with other local farmers. a former nurse, ann is a strong believer in the importance of an active lifestyle and homegrown diet. she's on a mission to see her neighbors embrace the healthy foods grown in the region. if she didn't have enough on her plate already, ann is also helping coordinate the creation of a 66-acre park in lansing so local residents have access to a community garden and green space for recreation. ann is doing tremendous work in her community and i look forward to seeing her efforts on behalf of the people of

lansing continue to grow and flourish. i yield back. the speaker pro tempore: the gentlelady yields back. for what purpose does the gentlelady from california seek recognition? ms. hahn: i ask unanimous consent to address the house for one minute. the speaker pro tempore: without objection, the gentlelady is recognized for one minute. ms. hahn:mr. speaker, i rise today on world pancreatic cancer day in solidarity with those who have been affected by this deadly disease. i join members of congress, my staff, and many others walking the halls of congress today wearing purple for purpose. to convince my colleagues that we must increase funding for pancreatic cancer research. too often pancreatic cancer diagnosis is a death sentence. we can change that. 50 years ago breast cancer was also killing women at an alarming rate and women are now fighting and beating breast cancer because well funded scientific research has vastly improved screening and treatment. i'm thinking today of my friend, larry clark, a former rancho mayor who has found the strength to fight pancreatic

cancer and advocate for others. let us answer their call today. let us wage hope and let us try to double the pancreatic cancer survival rate by 2020. i yield back. the speaker pro tempore: the gentlelady yields back. for what purpose does the gentleman from pennsylvania seek recognition? without objection, the gentleman is recognized for one minute. >> mr. speaker, quote, lack of transparency is a huge political advantage, call it the stupidity of the american voter or whatever, end quote. mr. pitts: that was obamacare architect, jonathan gruber, speaking last year at the university of pennsylvania. the broken obamacare promises are now legendary. quote, if you like your health plan you can keep it. if you like your doctor you can keep it. the law will save american families money, end quote. don't tell that to the 16th district business owners like nelson and ron. who both recently contacted me to talk about their struggle to continue affording coverage for their employees. both of them used to cover 100%

of their employee's coverage, now they can't afford to do so. gruber, the m.i.t. professor consultant, can jet around the country bragging about pulling one over on the american people. again his quote, the stupidity of the american voters, end quote. what liberal arrogance. what he and the president did with obamacare has done tremendous harm to americans struggling to provide for themselves and their families. that is why we must continue to fight for real health care eform. the speaker pro tempore: for what purpose does the gentlelady from new york seek recognition? for what purpose does the gentlelady from new york seek recognition? mrs. maloney: i rise to address the house for one minute. the speaker pro tempore: the gentlelady is recognized for one minute. mrs. maloney: six years ago this week the economic situation of this country was so perilous we announced that the tarp program was going to be expanded to cover auto loans

and credit cards. the housing bubble had burst. household wealth was slashed by over $16 trillion. banks to thered. lending was frozen. and the dow was about to plunge to 7,000. the g.d.p. was sinking at a rate of 6.3%. today much has changed. the tarp has been repaid. the dow has climbed 10,000 points. businesses are growing. unemployment has fallen to 5.8%. g.d.p. is expanding at a rate of 3.5%. and as this congress considers how to move forward, it would be beneficial and helpful if we would always remember to look back at what worked and what didn't. and let's do more of what works. with 56 months of private sector job growth, not enough, but the best record we ever had in history, we must build on this progress by investing in infrastructure, raising wages for middle class workers, committing to make it in

america, and making sure our schools are preparing for the next generation. the speaker pro tempore: the gentlelady's time has expired. for what purpose does the gentleman from pennsylvania seek recognition? without objection, the gentleman is recognized for one minute. mr. fitzpatrick: mr. speaker, today we recognize the first ever world pancreatic cancer day in an effort to shed light on this disease as well as the determination to eradicate it. pancreatic cancer is the only major cancer that still has a five-year survival rate in the single digits at 6%. that is in stark contract to the overall survival rate for cancer which is now 67%. even more alarming, pancreatic cancer is now estimated to become the second leading cause of cancer related deaths in the united states by 2020. while the threat of this disease is real, pancreatic cancer does not have to be a death sentence, but we need to act now. working together we can push back against this diagnosis. with the combined efforts of loords on capitol hill, including the -- leaders on

capitol hill including members that serve this bod -- boddy, we can generate awareness and renew focus on beating pancreatic cancer once and for all. i urge my colleagues to reach across the aisle to support these common sense funding proposals. i yield back. the speaker pro tempore: the gentleman yields back the balance of his time. for what purpose does the gentleman seek recognition? without objection, the gentleman is recognized for one minute. >> mr. speaker, i rise today to commemorate the anniversary of a pivotal event in history. 25 years ago, november 9, 1989, the berlin wall fell heralding the end of the cold war. today, germany's a vibrant financial economic and political heart of all of europe. mr. boustany: it's an important ally of the united states and central to a european nation. today a large segment of the berlin wall accepted by former secretaries of state henry

kissinger and james baker, as well as atlanta-i counsel fred kempi, will be unveiled at the german embassy until a permanent location is found here in washington. it is signed by the statesmen and activists whose vision and leadership made this possible and led to the fall of the berlin wall. it will serve as a very important reminder of the diplomatic ties between our two countries. mr. speaker, i pledge to continue working with my colleagues to ensure that our two countries continue to strengthen our diplomatic, economic, and strategy partnership into the 21st century. i yield back, mr. speaker. the speaker pro tempore: for what purpose does the gentleman from texas seek recognition? >> mr. speaker, i ask unanimous consent to address the house for one minute. revise and extend my remarks. the speaker pro tempore: without objection, the gentleman is recognized for one minute. mr. poe: mr. speaker, it's time to bring american energy to americans. the keystone pipeline is the answer. for over six years the administration has been saying no to energy independence. six years. that's longer than it took us

to win world war ii. oil is the most reliable and cost-effective source of energy the united states has. the keystone pipeline from canada to texas will bring as much as crude oil as we get from saudi arabia. it will bring energy security and national security. it will bring jobs. the pipeline will make middle eastern politics and energy irrelevant. . i introduced the k fast bill that would approve the permit for the keystone x.l. pipeline. instead of leaving americans at the mercy and questionable loyalties of unstable middle eastern countries we should take care of ourselves. if the administration continues to be politically stone walled, the canadians will sell it to someone else like china. now, isn't that lovely? build the pipeline. it's the right thing to do. and that's just the way it is. the speaker pro tempore: the gentleman's time has expired. for what purpose does the

gentleman from missouri seek recognition? >> i ask unanimous consent to address the house for one minute and to revise and extend my remarks. the speaker pro tempore: without objection, the gentleman is recognized for one minute. >> thank you, mr. speaker. mr. speaker, for months i said how detrimental the new waters of the united states e.p.a. regulation would be to the people of my district. we have long protected some of the most beautiful waterways in the world but once again bureaucrats think they know better. i have many questions about the regulation but when the natural resources committee held a hearing on this rule back in june, the federal agencies did not even show up. how can we trust them to work with landowners if the rule is implemented. mr. smith: earlier this year the house passed a bill to protect americans from the huge regulatory burden, but like so many others it is stuck in the senate. luckily there's still time to do something to stop this disastrous power grab. the e.p.a. is accepting comments on the proposed waters of the united states rule until friday, november 14. so join me in telling the e.p.a. how terrible this ill-considered regulation would be for missouri and the united

states. thank you, mr. speaker. the speaker pro tempore: the gentleman yields back.

the speaker pro tempore: pursuant to clause 12-a of rule 1, the chair

come back, they'll work on several federal land exchange bills and then later on today begin work on a bill that will authorize the keystone x.l.

pipeline, a final passage vote on that expected tomorrow. off the floor, house republicans will elect their leaders for the next congress. the house is back in. live now. we return to the house floor on c-span. ncurs objection under clause 6 of rule 20. recorded votes will be postponed. questions will be taken later. for what purpose does the gentleman from alaska seek recognition? mr. young: mr. speaker, i move to suspend the rules and pass h.r. 5167 as amended. sort the clerk will report the title of the bill. the clerk: a bill to direct the administrator of general services on behalf of the secretary of the interior to convey certain federal property located in the national petroleum reserve in alaska to the olgomic corporation, an alaska native corporation, established under the alaska native claims settlement act. the speaker pro tempore: pursuant to the rule, the gentleman from alaska, mr. young, and the gentleman from arizona mr. each control 20 minutes. the chair recognizes the gentleman from alaska. mr. young: i ask unanimous consent that all members may have five legislative days to

revise and extend their remarks and include extraneous material on the bill under consideration. the the speaker pro tempore: without objection. mr. young: 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 may consume. mr. young: the short range radar site is an early warning station. historically the u.s. air force maintained a radar site on the property but no longer operational. the air force is in the final stages of cleaning up the property which is expected to be finished this summer. . the olgoonik corporation is finishing the project. the property is owned by the department of interior and managed by the bureau of land management. the native corps has been trying to acquire the site already owned by the native corporation. the national petroleum reserve act of 1976 prevents them from conveying this land. h.r. 5167 directs them to sell

it at fair market value. it allows the alaska native corporation will turn the potential abandoned unused parcel into a useful property. i ask my colleagues to support this bill. and i reserve the balance of my time. the speaker pro tempore: the gentleman from alaska reserves his time. the gentleman from arizona is recognized. mr. grijalva: thank you, 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 may consume. mr. grijalva: thank you, mr. chairman. h.r. 5167 directs the administrator of general services on behalf of the secretary of the interior to convey 1,518 acres of federal land in the national petroleum reserve in alaska to the olgoonik corporation. the parcel in question was previously used by the u.s. air force and is no longer needed by the department of defense. t contains a pipeline to the -- and would be used to support offshore energy ex-traction. 's used by property owned by

the olgoonik corporation and was under the resettlement claims act. it would provide needed economic development for the alaska native corporation. while i have some concerns with thegs will, including an unrealistic 180-daytime frame for surveys and conveyance of the parcel, the waiver requirements to provide an environmental review, according to nepa, and the use of nonfederal -- the use of a nonfederal appraisal agent, we support the passage of h.r. 5167 and reserve the balance of my time. the speaker pro tempore: the gentleman reserves. the gentleman from alaska is recognized. mr. young: mr. speaker, i have no further speakers and i yield back the balance of my time. the speaker pro tempore: the gentleman from alaska yields back. the gentleman from arizona. mr. grijalva: thank you, mr. speaker. i yield back the balance of my time. the speaker pro tempore: the question is will the house suspend the rules and pass h.r. 5167, 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 bill is passed, and without objection the motion to reconsider is laid on the table. without objection, the title is amended. for what purpose does the gentleman from alaska seek recognition? mr. young: mr. speaker, i ask unanimous consent that the house suspend the rules and pass h.r. 3326, as amended. the clerk: a bill to provide for an exchange of land between the united states and the trinity public utilities district of trinity county, california, involving a parcel of national forest system land in shasta-trinity national orest. the speaker pro tempore: pursuant to the rule, the gentleman from alaska, mr. young, and the gentleman from arizona, mr. grijalva, each will control 20 minutes. the chair recognizes the gentleman from alaska. young -- mr. young: mr. speaker i ask unanimous consent that all members may have five legislative days to revise and extend their remarks and include extraneous material on the bill under consideration. the speaker pro tempore: without objection, so ordered. mr. young: i yield myself such time as i may consume. at this time i would reserve the balance of my time and recognize congressman jared huffman to explain the bill, the sponsor.

the speaker pro tempore: the gentleman reserves -- mr. young: i reserve. the speaker pro tempore: the gentleman reserves. the gentleman from arizona. mr. grijalva: thank you, mr. speaker, i i yield myself such time as i may consume. the speaker pro tempore: the gentleman is recognized for as much time as he may consume. mr. grijalva: thank you, mr. speaker. let me recognize the sponsor of the legislation, the gentleman from california, mr. huffman, for as much time as he may consume. the speaker pro tempore: the gentleman is recognized for as much time as he may consume. mr. huffman: thank you, mr. chair, and thank you, mr. grijalva and mr. young. mr. speaker, i rise in support of this bill, the trinity county land exchange act of 2014, and i yield myself such time as i may consume. . this bill is very straightforward, bipartisan bill. it facilitates a land exchange between the trinity public utilities district, the united states forest service, and bureau of land management. and i'm grateful that my bill is co-sponsored by my friend and district neighbor, congressman doug lamalfa, who represented trinity county when he was in the state

legislature. trinity county located in northern california is one of the poorest counties in the entire state. and although it's very large, much of it is rugged and remote and more than 75% of the total land base is held by the federal government, which leaves very little land suitable for economic development. this legislation before us today will help stimulate trinity county's economy. the bill grants trinity county a much needed 100 acre parcel from the shasta trinity national forest that's accessible by the highway, uniquely suited for economic development, and in exchange the county's public utility district will convey a 47-acre parcel west of weaverville that will improve public access to the trinity river, which is a wild and scenic river. the bill guarantees a fair return for federal taxpayers as the united states forest service will receive a cash equalization payment for the improvement, maintenance, reconstruction, or construction of a facility or improvement for the national forest system.

this is a win-win bill all the way around. partnerships with land management agencies are really critical to trinity county's economic development. i'm so glad the county has been able to develop this win-win partnership with the federal agencies that meets everybody's needs. this land swap is a great example of bipartisan legislation that further our shared priorities of economic development and environmental protection in our nation's rural communities. again i especially want to thank chairman hastings, ranking member defazio, chairman bishop, ranking member grijalva, and my neighbor, doug lamalfa, for all their assistance and collaboration. the many staff who have worked hard on this bill, especially my sea grant fellow, zach penny. i yield back. the speaker pro tempore: the gentleman yields back. gentleman from arizona reserves much the gentleman from alaska. mr. young: i rise in vong support and congratulation the congressman and doug lamalfa. this is a good piece of legislation. i have to go back to history a

little bit. being originally from california 63 years ago, i remember in trinity county as one of the richer counties. when we had a timber industry. and we had a regular -- weaverville is one of the largest timber cities in the country. it's no longer. it's a very poor county because of the management of federal lands and how they don't manage it. i compliment the two congressmen for working on this legislation. i urge the passage of the bill and yield back the balance of my time. the speaker pro tempore: the gentleman from alaska yields back. the gentleman from arizona. the mr. -- mr. grijalva: i thank the gentleman from california, the sponsor of the bill, for his legislation and the hard work and with that i yield back the balance of my time. the speaker pro tempore: the gentleman from arizona yields back. the question is will the house suspend the rules and pass h.r. 3326 as amended. so many as are in favor say aye. those opposed, no. in the opinion of the chair, 2/3 of those voting having responded in the affirmative, the rules are suspended, the bill is passed, and without

objection the motion to reconsider is laid upon the table. for what purpose does the gentleman from alaska seek recognition? mr. young: i move to suspend the rules and pass h.r. 4846 as amended. the speaker pro tempore: the clerk will report the title of the bill. the clerk: h.r. 4846, a bill to adjust the boundary of the arapaho national forest, colorado, and for other purposes. the speaker pro tempore: pursuant to the rule, the gentleman from alaska, mr. young, and the gentleman from arizona, mr. grijalva, each will control 20 minutes. the chair recognizes the gentleman from alaska. mr. young: i ask unanimous consent that all members may have five legislative days to revise and extend their remarks and include extraneous material on the bill under consideration. the speaker pro tempore: without objection, so ordered. the oung: mr. speaker, arapahoe national forest boundary adjustment act of 2014, will adjust the boundary to the state of colorado and incorporate 92 additional acres. this land is required by the secretary of agriculture to become part of the protection area established by congress in 1993. to mark up the -- at mark up

the national resources committee admitted the bill to require written permission of the landowner before partial and private land could be included. the amendment also requires any land acquisition in the added area would be achieved only by donation or exchange. and motorized use provisions was clarified the bill does not open privately owned land to trespass. with these added rights and fiscal responsibility provisions, the committee was able to report the bill by unanimous consent and i support this legislation. the i reserve the balance of my time. the speaker pro tempore: the gentleman from alaska reserves. the gentleman from arizona virginia tech. mr. grijalva: thank you, mr. chairman. i like to yield to representative jared polis of colorado, the sponsor of the legislation, and thank him for his hard work on this boundary adjustment which re234rec9s current management and authorizes acquisition and protection of this pristine land. with that let me yield for whatever time he may consume to the gentleman from colorado. the speaker: gentleman from colorado is recognized. mr. polis: i thank the

gentleman from arizona and the gentleman from alaska. i rise in support of legislation that i was proud to author, the arapahoe national forest boundary adjustment act of 2014. h.r. 4846. this legislation involves a parcel of 10 lots we call the wedge in grand county, colorado, in the second congressional district. it is located just north of the town of grand lake and west of the famous rocky mountain national park. come visit. it's called the wedge because it's actually a wedge of land which twites the arapaho national forest from the rocky mountain national park. this parcel is integral to the successful management of these lands, the wedge is currently outside the national forest boundary. i drafted this bill after receiving a lot of feedback and strong local support. to incorporate the wedge into the arapaho national forest to make sure this land sen joyed by the millions of visitors who travel west from the top of rocky mountain national park on the trail ridge road scenic beway.

-- byeway. the u.s. forest service already owns several of the parcels. there is a nonprofit, the rocky mountain nature association that owns one lot. two by private landowners. we have worked with the landowners and to craft this legislation as well as local government. as a result all interested parties have sent in letters of support. the bill is simple. it incorporates the wedge into the boundary adds lots owned to the forest service and authorizes the federal government to purchase land in the designated areas from willing sellers. the bill's important because development of the wedge parcel has an important impact on scenic beauty of the rocky mountain national park, also a key driver of our economy. in northern colorado. and it could negatively harm the adjoining colorado river headwaters if we don't appropriately deal with the wedge parcel. as such, the surrounding communities, landowners, support this idea that preserves the scenic qualities the wedge has for the area. the bill was community driven

efforts, received letters of support, the town of grand lake, the head warter trails alliance, conservation colorado. all three affected landowners, and many aspects of the tourist industry support this bill as well. very grateful that the house natural resources committee quickly consider this legislation. unanimously pass this legislation september 18. i urge my colleagues on the floor to similarly support this legislation here today. i yield back the balance of my time. the speaker pro tempore: the gentleman from colorado yields back much the gentleman from arizona reserves. the gentleman from alaska. mr. young: no further requests for speakers. i yield back. the speaker pro tempore: the gentleman from arizona. mr. grijalva: 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. 4846 as amended. so many as are in favor say aye. those opposed, no. in the opinion of the chair, 2/3 of those voting having responded in the affirmative, the rules are suspended, the bill is passed, and without objection the motion to reconsider is laid upon the table. for what purpose does the gentleman from alaska seek recognition? mr. young: mr. speaker, morph to suspend the rules and pass h.r. 4867 as amended. the speaker pro tempore: the

clerk will report the title of the bill. the clerk: union calendar number 450, h.r. 4867, a bill to provide for certain land to be taken into trust for the benefit of the ban of mission indians and for other purposes. the speaker pro tempore: pursuant to the rule, the gentleman from alaska, mr. young, and the gentleman from arizona, mr. grijalva, each will control 20 minutes. the chair recognizes the gentleman from alaska. mr. young: mr. speaker, i ask unanimous consent that all members may have five legislative days to revise and extend their remarks and include extraneous material on the bill under consideration. the speaker pro tempore: without objection, so ordered. mr. young: i yield myself such time as i may consume. the speaker pro tempore: the gentleman is recognized. mr. young: mr. speaker, 4867 authorizes a land exchange between the ma rango band of mission indians and a monday indian landowner to resolve the land use and access dispute. under the exchange, the private landowner will transfer clear title to 41-acre parcel of land he currently owns within the marango reservation locateded in the state of california through the secretary of interior. who would then hold the land in

trust for the tribe. it transfers to the private landowner clear tightle to a 41-acre parcel of the trust land at the edge of the reservation affording access to the property. the to address certain city and tribal needs. the subcommittee on indian alaska native americans held a hearing which was followed by the natural resources committee approval by unanimous consent. this legislation's noncontroversial and i urge the house to pass this legislation. i reserve the balance of my time. the speaker pro tempore: the gentleman from alaska reserves. the gentleman from arizona virginia tech. mr. grijalva: thank you, mr. is recognized. mr. grijalva: thank you. i thank mr. rue i for bringing -- ruiz for bringing this up and coming up a bipartisan solution. with that i yield to the gentleman from california to speak to his legislation as much time as he may consume. the speaker pro tempore: the gentleman from california is recognized for as much time as he may consume.

mr. ruiz: thank you, mr. speaker, thank you, mr. chairman. thank you, he the jefment arizona, for yielding. i'm proud to rise in support of my bill h.r. 4867, the economic development through tribal land exchange act which is a noncontroversial bipartisan bill that passed unanimously out of the house natural resources committee and is supported by the department of interior. the bill would aid economic development in the city of banning, california, through a land swapped. currently the marango band of mission indians and a private landowner would like to exchange two parcels of land which are nearly identical in size and value but are restrained from doing so because one of the parcels is currently held in trust by the united states on behalf of the tribe. my bill facilitates and equitable land swap between the tribe anti-landowner to provide more consolidated reservation land for the tribe and

commercial development opportunities for the landowner, the city of banning, and riverside county. the bill is consistent with the department of the interior's policy of promoting land consolidation within indian country and facilitating economic development. we can all support this kind of commonsense, bipartisan legislation for the simple reason it benefits all parties. involved and spurs job creation. this bill serves as a model for how land use issues can be addressed by a community coming together while upholding the sacred government to government relationship between the federal government and the indian tribes. i would like to thank chairman robert martin of the indians anti-city of banning for bring this issue to my attention. my colleague, representative paul cook, from california for being an original co-sponsor. and senator boxer from california for introducing the companion bill. i would also like to thank the subcommittee on indian and alaska native affairs chairman

young and ranking member for holding a hearing on this bill and chairman hastings and ranking member defazio for considering this bill in committee and for their help in bringing it to the floor today. i urge a yes vote on h.r. 4867, the economic development through tribal land exchange act. and i yield back the balance of my time. the speaker pro tempore: the gentleman yields back the balance of his time. the gentleman from arizona. mr. grijalva: i yield back. mr. young: i yield back. the speaker pro tempore: the question is will the house suspend the rules and pass h.r. 4867 as amended. so many as are in favor say aye. those opposed, no. in the opinion of the chair 2/3 of those voting having responded in the affirmative, the rules are suspended, the bill is passed, and without objection the motion to reconsider is laid upon the table. pursuant to clause 12-a of rule 1, the chair declares

senator jon cornyn will be the senate republican whip. john thune of south dakota, the policy chair. senator roy blunt of missouri will be the vice chairman. and senator roger wicker of mississippi is the campaign committee chair. that's senate republican leadership election results. on the democratic side of the

senate, senate democratic leaders have decided to give elizabeth warren of massachusetts a new job in the democratic leadership to help rev up the party's base. warren will work with the democratic policy and communications committee to reach out to liberal groups on democratic policies. the massachusetts democrat special assignment will likely focus on policy development instead of political tactics and messaging, a job that harry reid and senator chuck shumer have honchoed in recent years. her title being strategic policy advisor to the policy and communications committee, a source said. while we're waiting for several party leadership briefings to get under way at the capitol, which we hope to bring to you live here on c-span, a portion of today's "washington journal," our guest was former house speaker dennis hastert. >> washington journal continues. host: our next guest was sworn

in as republican speaker of the house in 1999. here a bit from back then. my republican colleagues, i say it is time to put forward the major elements of our legislative program. we will succeed or fail, depending upon how sensible a program we offer. to my democrat colleagues, i will say, i will meet you halfway. maybe more so on occasion. but cooperation is a two-way street, and i expect you to meet me halfway as well. the president and the number of democrats in the house here have been saying, it is time to address several issues head on. i will buy that. that think we should agree stalemate is not an option. solutions are. [applause]

and to all my colleagues, i say we must get our job done and done now. we have an obligation to pass all the appropriation bills by this summer and we will not leave this chamber until we do. [applause] i intend, i intend to be a good listener. but i want to hear ideas in the debate that flows from them. i will have a low tolerance for campaign speeches masquerading as debate, whatever the source. >> joining us now here on the set, the former speaker of the house, republican from illinois.

good morning. anything from those words back then that you would deliver to the incoming house and senate as the next session comes in? >> it is an old lesson over and over again. new'twas a dynamic guy. he did a lot of things with speakers task force. i want to get back to order. you had to get your appropriation process done, get done,udget appropriation so you had your budget done by the 15th of march, so you have reconciliation with the senate by the 15th of april, so you start to do your appropriation bills and get things done. everything else flows from that. you set up a rhythm. things get done, you need to get committees to do their work. bypass committees. we had dissension back then as well. homogeneousave party. there are different ideas even in our society. but you had to give people a part of the process and let them be a part of the solution instead of part of the problem.

that is how i operate. promisedsaid, under and overproduced. basically, that is what we did. >> as far as the process now as an outsider looking in, what do you think about the process? has it strayed far? >> i think the process has been deadlocked. we have not had a budget in 10 years to pass. so you do not have a budget and everything gets jammed up in the end. you have ongoing resolutions to try to fund the government and nobody has a definitive ideas on how things happen here at that is why the process is set up. comeut having these things out of the senator, that type of cooperation. not a lot of stuff gets done. you end up in a gridlock. host: on the house side, is part of the reason that there is vast disagreement on how to do a these issues, and i'm talking

about those he came under a tea party banner? there.ere the majority. basically, the backlash of the movement. you have to make them part of the solution. you cannot isolate them. we did outreach. we did a lot of things under budget. feelings a very strong we did not spend any of the surplus. the first four years i was speaker, we spent $640 billion of public debt. it has not been done since or before. doneally got some things because we did work together. >> our guest is with us to talk about his time in the senate, his time as speaker. the republican agenda going to the next congress and a pastored

-- and joining us. if you want to ask questions -- .> people are tired of gridlock i cannot talk too much for the senate. that is my world. we see that in the sixth year of any president, has a type of feedback.

i think there are solutions and i think there are ways to work across the aisle. you have to have cooperation on the other side of the aisle. you have to have people who want to come together and share ideas. >> with the ship that happened last week, how would you advise john boehner to go forward? >> i will not advise him. he has his own agenda and leadership promised. you understand the problems better than anyone else. >> do you talk at all? >> yes. we talked some am a but not a lot here at less about issues going on? >> probably just, it is really palace politics, how things happen inside and some of you have to do. >> what did you tell him question mark >> look, everything i tell them is between he and i. we haveg forward, issues like immigration. a few colors brought up and there is a story today about executive action.

the think house republicans should work on this? >> i think it is an issue, national issue. there are solutions. no one really knows whether it is 10, 12, 14, 1 million people embedded in this country. they are here undocumented. they by and large pay taxes and pay into the system. i think there is a role, the bad is to gives thing them some type of click citizenship. you legitimize them and say they are here. i do not think you can uproot them. i do not think that is possible. some of them have been here for one generation or two generations. you cannot pick them up and put them somewhere else. they are here. you have to legitimize them in some sense. care if it is a red

card or a purple card. they are here, they are paying taxes, and if they want to be a citizen, they have to get to the back of the line and become citizens. on the other side, you also have to fix our borders. one of the things i did a lot, before he became speaker, was the anti-drug, illegal drugs come into the country. 75% of them come across the southwest border. will fix the border if you're going to fix immigration. >> what you do currently? isaiah the law firm in d.c. -- i have a law firm in d.c. lng.y and i do not lobby a lot, but i'm up on the hill. i touch base and i'm really thinking about the bigger issues. how do you move these issues,

energy is a big issue for us. we also have allies around the world such as the largest consumer of gas in the world. >> this is the democrats line. >> we leave this recorded portion of "washington journal" to go to the capitol where we're supposed to hear about the senate democratic leader elections. >> i always try to start my meetings on time. the meeting this morning started at 9:00, and we just finished. it was very productive, very constructive meeting.

i was so impressed with every senator. i don't know how many spoke, but i would say -- >> 28. >> 28. >> so 28 senators spoke, and it was very, very good. what i want to announce today is that we're going to expand our leadership. we're going to do things a little differently, different approach and the one thing that came out of the caucus without any second guessing is that we have to continue fighting for the middle class. speech after speech after speech. i would be hard pressed to think of three of the 28 that didn't talk about the middle class. the middle class is what is concerning to every one of my senators. they are not getting a fair shot. and we're going to do everything we can in the 114th

congress to make sure that middle class of this great country of ours has a fair shot of succeeding. dscc oing to have a new chair, jon tester of montana. jon is a very plain man. and a farmer who has run won to -- two extremely, difficult races in a very swing state. amy klobuchar, part of the expanded leadership, i don't know anyone that tries harder to work across party lines than she does. in fact, she is one of the top senators in any legislative body, whether you're in the house or the senate, if you want to get something done on a bipartisan basis, talk to klobuchar. elizabeth warren -- somebody

asked me on the way in here, elizabeth warren will be part of your leadership, what do you expect her to do? i expect her to be elizabeth warren. we have to take a few questions. >> senator reid, what message do you believe voters -- is it focusing more on the middle class? inaudible] >> i believe that if we look at voter patterns and what we saw in this incredibly difficult election is that people that should have voted that didn't vote are people who needed a reason to vote and we have to create an atmosphere where the middle class feels that we're fighting for them. we had a number of brilliant statements in approximate our caucus, share odd brown, maria cantwell, a number of others who talked about -- sherrod brown, maria cantwell, a number

of others talked about that. >> a number of senators said that you worked so hard to protect democrats from tough votes that some of your members didn't have much of a record to run on. looking back, do you think you should have managed the senate a little bit differently? >> we tried on 73 separate occasions to have a vote on an amendment. the minority refused to let us have a vote. we tried having votes. remember? we had energy efficiency not once but twice where the republicans said this is the time to do something. we haven't done anything on energy for a long time. his is it. shaheen-portman, first time, never-ending stalling, we had to take it off the floor. the second time i had republicans who are part of that committee come to me with shaheen and say, ok, we got it this time. we have five amendments that

have been adopted in the committee that makes this bill so good. bring it to the floor and the republicans told me in the presence of jeanne shaheen and others, if you get any problems, fill the tree, we'll vote for cloture. ok. just before that vote took place, they wanted a vote on keystone. i said, no. i came back and said yes. they said, no, we want an up or down vote. i didn't want to do it. i said yes. they came back and said we'll only have a vote if you can geancht we're going to win it -- guarantee we're going to win it. we had the bill that was so awful as far as time consuming, we got nothing done. example after example. we tried to have votes. republicans made a decision after obama was first elected that they were going to oppose

everything that he wanted and that's what they've done. they couldn't stop us in the congress where we had 58, 59, 60 senators, but that's the story. anyone thinking that i stopped votes from occurring is simply not valid. [inaudible] >> no, i'll tell you. there are women here with me. i came to the senate in the sweep, when reagan got wiped out. eight of us came. i served at that time with one woman and i have seen this institution change for a lot of reasons. but one reason it has changed for the good is because of women. it has changed. women think differently than men. and i am so impressed with the women i have in micah cuss, that i wanted to reach out to them because they represent hat america's all about.

[inaudible] >> yes and i've said that many times since the election. this is not get-even time. i do not intend to run the democratic caucus like the republican caucus has been run in the minority. i am not going to do that. i am going, for example, i just old amy klobuchar, we have a lot of bills, they're bipartisan bills. she's going to get me a list of those and we're going to sit down and see if we can get the republicans to agree that they want to pass bipartisan bills. we want to legislate. we're not for stalling. we want to move on to the next congress with a record of accomplishment. >> [inaudible] >> oh, yeah. you bet. >> [inaudible] why you wanted

to be a part of the democratic leadership and what messages do you believe that voters were sending -- [inaudible] >> i believe in what the democrats are fighting for. you know, wall street is doing very well. c.e.o.'s are bringing in millions more. and families all across this country are struggling. we have to make this government work for the american people. and that's what we're here to fight for. and i am grateful to the leader, i am grateful to the caucus for giving me a chance to be part of that fight. but that's what we're all going to be here doing. every single day. that's what we're about. >> i see this as a tremendous opportunity for our country right now. our economy's stabilized and we need to move forward. and when we talked about those bills that are sitting around, many of which have now passed the house, we can get these done by the enlt of the year. and so -- end of the year. and so the idea here is to breakthrough the gridlock, to start having votes again, and

we will take them at their word. when they say they want to move with us and move this economy forward and get going. i think it's an opportunity and we need to seize it. >> the last question. i forgot about -- >> there is a guy. >> yeah, there is a guy. >> ok. >> i know he's hard to see. >> ok. >> had a hard time picking me out. well, first of all, it's going to be great to work with -- to make the senate functional again. really to move the ball forward for the middle class. i think it is critically important. i think if there was one message that the voters sent out, a lot of them by note voting, -- not voting, it was that we need to work together. my role is going to be finding candidates that can win, that can advocate for the middle class and their elections and i look forward to that challenge. it's going to be a big job. i still have my duties as a u.s. senator which are very, very important from the state of montana and i've got duties

at my farm at home. but the bottom line is we've worked hard before, we'll work hard again and we'll be successful the -- successful again. >> i think we've done enough, everybody. thanks. [captioning performed by the national captioning institute, which is responsible for its caption content and accuracy. visit ncicap.org] [captions copyright national able satellite corp. 2014] >> senate majority leader harry reid talking about democratic leadership elections, introducing amy klobuchar and john tester. new members of the leadership team in the senate. a tweet from dianne feinstein a short time ago saying that harry reid was re-elected as the democratic leader in the senate. earlier today republicans elected senator mitch mcconnell of kentucky to be the senate majority leader when the new

congress convenes in january. the house right now in recess so that republicans and democrats can caucus. republican members are meeting and will elect party leaders for the 114th congress, which begins in january. democrats also caucusing now. house members, when they return, or rather -- but will not be voting on their leadership. we don't expect, until next week. that's house democratic leaders. we do expect to hear from members of the house democratic caucus shortly. around 1:30 eastern time we hope to bring you that event live here on c-span. the house will be back this afternoon after the meetings, when they return they'll start work on a bill authorizing the keystone x.l. pipeline. now on c-span, we return to a portion of today's "washington journal" when we were hearing from former speaker of the house, dennis hastert. we also have allies around the

world such as the largest consumer of gas in the world. >> this is the democrats line. you're on with the speaker of the house. i have a question. seen schumer's democratic immigration bill? guest: he has had a number of bills. i have not seen the most recent. i am not in the everyday flow of legislation anymore. i look at bigger issues, but not particular issues.

product ofll be a negotiation and two sides working out. it is the end and not the beginning that is important. >> from kentucky, ron is a is up next. caller: good morning. if in america, we're all supposed to be held accountable to the same walk, how is it to the representatives of this country can allow people to illegally enter the country, get benefits, and be treated differently than the regular taxpayer, then we as the taxpayer, how are we supposed to respect the law, when we see it is not working for us. it is working for people who should not be here. guest: we do not allow people, but they do get across. to fix the have got

border. it is the first thing to do before anything. immigration reform is to fix the border. got to stop people from coming across. you will never stop them from are,g across, but who they they are coming across legitimately, and they're not carrying drugs. that is the important thing. >> from florida, republican line. you are up next. click heard you mention you gave as speaker of the house. to great applause in the house you will you stated not adjourn until you get all the appropriations bills voted on, which sounds like appropriations means spending. today, you should be working across the aisle and since america is $16 trillion in

debt, why would you recommend more spending in any form? i am not recommending spending. i am saying the appropriation process. you have to discipline yourself and budget area just like you put a household budget or a business plan together, you have a budget and you do not go over that fear that is the whole purpose of the budget. establish the budget, then establish the spending process. we saved and spent down 650 billion dollars in the first four years i was speaker. that is not spending more money. that is not adding $1 trillion on the national debt. illinois our next caller. independent line. caller: hello. remember me? [laughter] is gone.hink he

let's go to ohio. jerry. hi. caller: how are you doing? guest: fine. caller: i have questions about certain stuff. i know you are talking on politics. in, beforety i live a bunch of bad stuff started, an example is, like my you can -- my utility company. they have been ripping people off. i am an honest, hard-working husband. i have been charged almost $300 one month just for aseptic water bill and they dug the street up in front of my house. instead of admitting it was their mistake, i financially. for all of it. even with them ripping off, we are still driving through streets with holes. they could at least fix the street if they're going to rip us off. that is just one comment. my family has been victimized by

a bunch of people in this town and even law enforcement is participating in part of it. caller, thanks. you talk a little bit about working together. given example of how that worked on both sides and what can be applied to the incoming congress. down talked about sitting $650 billion. we had a balanced budget agreement tween the president clinton, and myself. and congress and president. i remember the discussion we had last year clinton was in office. we got down and the senate had spent more money than we have spent. they basically went over the budget. had to get down, and we will stick to the agreement. the president was in africa. hold, i think jetblue, now the u.s. treasure, was the guy in charge of operating the budget in the

white house. i got a hold of jack lew a couple times and said, we need to sit down with the president. it is the end of the session and we need to close things down. the president is in africa and cannot get ahold of them. i said, we need to talk. finally he said, he will be in turkey tomorrow morning at 10:00 in the back of the limousine. you have that window to talk. 10:00 in the morning in turkey, 2:00 in the morning over there .t the capital i dial the white house switchboard and they put me into the back seat of the limousine. bill clinton is a very engaging guy. he said, how are you doing? i said, fine. you have a very successful trip. we have things we have got talk about. he said, what is going on. i said, we have got to get the budget done and we are about $100 billion over. he asked what i think we undo

and i said, we ought to do 1% across -- across-the-board cut. he said that is a lot. i said, we need to work it out. he said, what you think we have to do question mark i said 1% and he said i think 1.25. i said, -- we're going back and forth and back and forth. finally, we ended up with .86. we had an agreement. getissue is, you engage and the agreement. clinton was willing to engage in we were and we got things done. to be engagements on both sides to get things done. there are other things we worked together on. basicallycolumbia, we sold off the drugs in this country. did urban development. so i mean, there are things we

can do together. you have to find some things where you can get things done and find success. >> how often were you in personal medication with president clinton? >> i would probably talk to him every week in some context one way or the other. >> do you think president obama could have different types of relations with -- going forward question mark less i do not know what medication is doing. if you're going to have success with congress, you better talk to congress. put forth ideas, and one of the things i -- i said, you have to be a listener. call me listener and not speaker. you have got to listen. listen to members, people, and the white house. then you can start to solve problems. >> from kentucky, this is greg, democrat line. hi. go ahead. caller: how are you doing this money? things going good with you today? guest: not bad.

caller: i want to talk about some things. i mean, you know, i hear you talking about everything going on there. the policies i see today, most are not working. there is a policy, it takes five years to get the policy done. now, i have seen for the last five years, people going canada, to geto, away from the epa. the policies are not working. what can we do to get it working? >> there certainly is a difference in thought on where republicans want to go with some environmental issues and where the president wants to go with environmental issues. that is a difference in philosophy and not a difference in policy, basically. as long as he is going to be president, he will have the

ability to direct the epa and do the things he wants. when the presidency changes, if it changes, you will have a different philosophy in place. people elected the president twice, and basically, endorse what the philosophy is. until this changes, you will have a push, especially on environmental issues. i think there is a middle ground . you have to bring capital back into this country. he believes the country, because the capitalists left this country, we have to bring it back. we have these laws that say, japan, theymany, have to bring another tax with you. we are only one. we have trillions of dollars of expanded capital overseas. we need to bring the capital back here. that could make rich people rich.

to pay that tax, reinvested, and make jobs. we hire people to drive them. host: carolyn is up next in pennsylvania. caller: i hope you can give me an answer to this question. i watched the news, and i see in israel, they have got a really good and secure border fence. tell me please, what is the real reason our government will not put up a fence that will peak -- keep people out? the real reason please. for have been an advocate fencing the border, sometimes with opposition. because of the drug issue, they need to keep illegal drugs out of the country. place iso it if some no longer in the border, it can be a physical fence, or a virtual fence there it radar and all these types of things, the technical things we have. we need to let our border patrol do our job -- do their job.

the national guard and other people can do it. we can do it if we have the will to do it. sometimes, it is the local governments that do not want it. sometimes, they do on it, but it from brownsville, texas, san diego, and california. we have got to make it uniform. i agree with you that we can do it. if this country puts its will to it, we can do it. will,are also people who through the caribbean, and they will come across the canadian border, which also happens to be poorest, but that is where we have to start area >> we asked folks on facebook to ask questions to you. something i think your name is attached to, alice said, the rule in the house of representatives is undemocratic and goes against democracy. can you explain what that is? >> there was no rule.

it is, if you got 218 votes, you move the bill and get it taken to the floor and move it. a misnomer,ea is saying you have to have a majority. let me say, every speaker that existed, if you let the other side control the process of politics, you probably will not be leader very long. almost every speaker in history you have most things to pass, you have to have a majority of your own people or you are not leading anybody. host: gaithersburg, maryland, michelle. let's go to melody, florida, democrats line. hi.er: i'm just wanting to understand why our v.a. veterans have nothing to come home to.

they are not getting the respect they deserve. middle-class, we are actually the poor. we are not receiving and you all are not listening or even excepting putting anything out that will sell -- that will help the families in the middle-class. we can do best thing for this whole country, when we talk about classes, i think we are wrong. we're one nation and we have got to work together. some people are more productive and some people have the ability to put together wealth. what you do is use the capital and the research we have to create jobs in the country. when we create jobs, everybody went. jobs, everybody wins. the middle class wins. we should not add on to

medicare. you have to move people and create wealth. everybody in this country can share in that wealth. efforts toody votes repeal portions of the affordable care act. what do you think about that as an effort? i disagree with the affordable care act. the philosophy that the government is big brother, they will provide everything for you and they will make decisions. you are not making those decisions. those decisions ought to be between a patient and a doctor. that is a very personal thing. there are ways to do that. are trying to take apart pieces of the affordable care act. we need to change the philosophy

. we should not have the big brother deciding our care. that is a personal choice. that is why people want to assemble part of it. >> what do you think it on a separate fronts? .uest: there is a difference it is not a policy issue. it is a philosophical issue. government should not be there, then you really need to change it. as long as the president has veto power, you will not get much changed. in way you're going to do it is through the reconciliation process. .ou can pass it in-house

it is all dollars and cents. host: it could be different next year. guest: it could be moderated. host: our guest is former speaker of the house. also served in the house as representative from illinois. the next call is from valdes. sick is noting philosophical. it is real. i have fantastic insurance in california. you and myself can speak about health care because we do not have to worry about it. a lot of people don't have anywhere to go. that is my first point. when i hear people talk about immigration, i have to correct people.

agribusiness in california start of the influx of illegal immigration. it has spread out. it they did not intended to. mexicans are taking over the industries. they are moving west. -- i am sorry, they are moving east. that is what people do not like. doing unpleasant jobs. ingrained in this society. they have to get used to it. yesterday my congressional -- guest: my congressional district was made up of immigrants. nativee except for

indians are immigrants. this is a natural process in immigration. it is legal. you have to control the borders and you have to bring through immigration, not just whoever can get across. host: mike, virginia. i appreciate your service. i hope there is more civility. i look back on your time and you look like gandhi. reason i am calling you, i never heard a definitive answer. there was an accusation made years back that you had a highway diverted in illinois where you in your son owned property and that you made

millions and you did not respond at the time. i would like an answer -- did you profit from some highway being moved because of property you own? there was a highway that was proposed that was never built. i sold the farm and bought a farm. people who did not want the highway made that an issue. we never profited because there was a highway there. awayighway was five miles from any piece of property i had. host: gregory, republican line. i am a student of hamilton. i do not know why we cannot turn the debt of hours into a blessing. shouldn't we discontinue the

payment of interest on the debt and use it as a fund to offset any deficits and surpluses in our budget. words, if we pay interest on the debt, that seems to be excessive. get our good faith and credit, why would we want to give them interest besides? use it as a funded to mitigate budgetary --. if there is a surplus, you add to it. you remember back in the 30's -- back in the 1930's when we went off the gold standard. they come out with a hundred thousand dollar bill. it was easier to carry than 4000 double eagles. when you're are on the run, it seems like the right ring to do.

guest: i think if you are not paying interest on the debt, you will pay interest on inflation. nobody is going to lend money to the federal government, whether it is an individual or if it is . foreign country there has to be a play there. that frees the country up to not very interest back. you can spend it on real things. host: dennis hastert joining us on "washington journal." i wanted to read a couple of things. to people in the house, value the work courses

you don't undo that by being five miles wide and an inch deep and being on tv all the time it. takes a lot of work and study to be an expert, to really lift

your weight in certain areas and you find a lot of people in congress are really specialists. host: how would you assess how coverage of congress has changed, television or otherwise, since you've left the speakership. guest: i think even since i left, i mean, when i left the speaker, we were pretty much cable tv 24/7. and what happens from the old network system when i first came to congress, with exception to c-span, you know, people, you had nightly news or the morning news, it was pretty networks, it asn't -- but today, msnbc or fox or whatever, whatever you choose to do, and you can also pick what you want to hear. the political strife that you want to hear. they have to have this news just to keep people going and so you hear some of the same things over and over and over again and you kind of fan the

flames of the feeding frenzy. and so i think news has become ss analytical and more populist in a sense. sometimes i turn to a station that is pretty neutral and that's what i want to hear. i just want to hear the real news about what happened and i'll let my own decisions decide philosophically. host: today is house orientation day. on capitol hill. hopefully show you a little bit of that going on when it takes place. but in the meanwhile, we're having a conversation with the former speaker of the house, dennis hastert. caller: hi. how are you doing? i just have a couple questions. i'm independent. and i'm from a family of military. y dad's a retired colonel.

they used to be republicans but now our family what what -- has gone completely away from that because of everything that's been going on. so my question is, how is it that -- hold on. i have a whole bunch of notes. i write everything down. it was ker boehner, brought up that some of the republicans were talking about how the women, they were dissing the women, saying that -- and then speaker boehner's like, oh, yeah, whatever. host: what would you like our guest to address specifically? caller: well, how it is that the republicans are treating women but the immigrants and those that are not white and then also, how is it that their pay structure is? can't we take some of the deficit and just lower all these people at the capitol and lower their pay?

guest: the deficit is what the government spends, the appropriation process. and the more it spends, the higher -- and the deficit happens when you spend more money than you bring in. that's why a lot of people say, we ought to have a balanced budget amendment. and we actually did that the first couple of years before we got into a two-front war. while i was speaker we had a balanced buppingt. you didn't spend more than you took in. and that's how you bring really spebledsing sensibilities to the congress. host: from maryland, jean is up next. go ahead. caller: good morning, sir. i want to thank you for your service and hope your party and the democratic party will support on their agenda the open field standard proposed by several members of congress. it's a re-enactment of the alternative fuels act of 1988 in which meth normal and

ethanol and anybody else that can make anything that's practical and didn't require a subsidy or mandate might work. it's worth noting that in this regard, that china is now spending $4 billion building a plant to take out natural gas, which is a great benefit to us all. guest: i believe in renewable fuels. we don't use methanol because it gets into the water supply and is very harmful. but ethanol's being used, in some places it's 10%, some places it's 15%ics mixture of gas. it's cheaper than gas. it brings down the price of gas and it's not subsidized. i support it. host: as we talk on capitol hill, freshman congressmen are getting their orientation today. what kind of things are they learning and what would you advice a freshman coming into congress? guest: probably one of the first things they learn, all the ethics and the traps that

are around you all the time. , normal behavior if you're a businessman or something can get new trouble as a member of congress. so that's the first thing that probably most of these guys come out of there kind of scared to death. boy, there's all these ethics things that are really kind of -- makes you -- changes how you live your life. and -- host: you referred to them as traps. guest: one of the things on ethics. you can either have good people in congress who have good moral standards, but the more mousetraps you have around people, the more toes they're going to get caught in it. you can't get a cup of coffee with somebody. must natural things. those types of things. in my view some of them get pretty petty. host: do they exist during your time as speaker? how does that work?

guest: some of them were laid on right after a i became speaker. not after i left the speakership. and i think we've had more since. host: is that perspective solely because of the job do you now or did you see that even before? guest: look, you did what you had to do. if the rules were there, everybody plays by the rules. but the more rules, i mean, it's just like the more laws you have. sometimes one law tells you to do something else and one law another thing. you get caught in between. host: as far as ethics and rules, what would you advise going forward? guest: elect ethical people. host: specifics. guest: that's not on the ballot. that's why you have elections. people go through that process. it's a real crucible to elect good people. i think not only people have to look at parties or philosophy, they have to look at basically who that person is. host: don from claire montana, california. republican line.

good morning. caller: good morning. i'm a little surprised that you ducked the question when they asked, are you a lobbyist and you said no you're not. and i think of all the people that represent the one percenters, all the retired government people, all the people that are living off the favorable statuses of crony capitalist or somebody that's on the inside that knows what stocks to get into, there's a whole thing set up where the one percenters are, you know, dictating how we're going to be. you got this immigration system set up, it's the chamber of commerce and other people pushing for, you know, these guys to have -- they're being used to keep down wages and you listen to the people out here, the democrats and republicans all agree that this whole idea of pushing immigration is not

needed right now. why is this a big thing that obama's got to be bushing -- pushing out and violating the constitution just to prove that he's the king, that he can get what he wants? host: put a lot out there. your response? guest: i think the immigration issue has to be handled. what happens today is the reality that you have millions of people, i don't know if it's 10 million or 14 million, whatever, but people that are here that are undocumented. they've been here some have been here since world war ii. families. because they came here, because they -- we needed people to be candy dancers and work on our railroads and work in the foundries and they've become part of the society. they have children and grandchildren. their families are here. that's a reality. they have to deal with that but you also have to deal with that by making sure that everybody else that does come in comes in through a legitimate process. host: one more call and this is susen from texas.

democrats line. caller: good morning. three or four very quick questions. what about the millions and -- ons that was spent for that chaney gave jobs to his friends in the military complex? there is fencing. whether they completed it or not is another question. what about the fact that during reagan's time there was many little bills attached to the the lls that allowed puppet masters, as i call them, in the background to offshore their money? and to ship our jobs overseas? that's when all this crap started. and then nixon. nixon turned our health care ver to that kyser insurance, whatever. to make judgment as to who ould be covered.

guest: you asked a lot of questions. i'm not sure if they're all valid. look, when nixon did -- that was a long time before i was involved in politics. he did create medicare. we've tried to improve medicare over those years because when they did medicare it was just hospitals and doctors. we know that pharmaceuticals are a big part of health care for seniors today. nixon -- you talk about jobs going overseas, quite frankly a lot of jobs did go overseas. but we created jobs in this country because our technical side and what we've been able to do in intellectual property is far superior than any other country and that's where we've we've kept adding jobs. you have to go with where the trends are. we don't probably make as much steel as we used to and we probably -- but i walked down the streets of my hometown and i see cars with labels on them

that weren't made in this country. but no government is telling people to buy those cars. people make that choice. it's where you have a free market and people decide what they're going to purchase and i don't know what kind of car you drive, i drive an american car because i made that decision. but that's what the free market is. if you're going to buy a car that's made overseas, jobs are going to go oversales. host: what would you like to see from the republican majority over the next two years? guest: i think what we need to do is make an effort, i think there's some real fiscal issues that we have to address. and i think to get back to regular order, to be able to get the appropriation process and not to overspend, not to get everything jammed up in the end, and then have the senate add things on and overspend, i think there needs to be a process. i think we can, i think there's a commonsense approach you can take to immigration. because you do have people here

and do you need to strengthen the borders and i think there's some agreements that you can find -- you know, not everybody's going to get everything that they want. but that's the whole idea of working together and finding agreement someplace where you can work together and find someplace where you can trade off and they can trade off and both sides get something. host: our guest served as the former speaker of the house, 1999 to 2007. dennis hastert joining us. thank you, sir. guest: thank you. [captioning performed by the national captioning institute, which is responsible for its caption content and accuracy. visit ncicap.org] [captions copyright national cable satellite corp. 2014] >> live from the capitol. we're waiting for a briefing by house democratic caucus leaders originally set to get under way at 1:30 eastern. it's been delayed about 30 minutes. we hear 2:00 p.m. eastern time this house democratic caucus briefing will get under way. we'll have it for you live here on c-span. house democrats and republicans are meeting this afternoon off the house floor. the g.o.p. is electing their leaders for the next congress.

we understand that the democrats will do so next week. also a number of leadership briefings, conferences taking place this afternoon. we expect to hear from senate republican leaders after their party lunch also at about 2:00 eastern time. you can see that on our companion network, c-span2. earlier today the republicans elected mitch mcconnell of kentucky, the current minority leader, to be the next senate majority leader for the 114th congress, now that the republicans are in the majority or will be in the majority come january. and senate democrats have re-elected harry reid of nevada as their leader for the new congress that convenes at the start of the year but he will serve as the minority leader instead of majority leader thanks to the republicans' success in the recent midterm elections. the associated press says that senator dianne feinstein of california said senate democrats decided to stick with reid during a lengthy closed

meeting thursday in the capitol. reid has been senate in a majority leader for eight years. again, the associated press romping on those senate democratic leadership elections today. so again, the house democratic caucus briefing coming up at 2:00 eastern, about 15 minutes from now. while we wait for that to get under way, more from today's "washington journal." democratic congressman tim ryan of ohio talking about the democratic agenda. host: getting back to congress. could you give me a little bit of your assessment what happened this past election season? and what happened to democrats specifically? guest: do i have to? [laughter] host please. guest: you know, we got our butts kicked. i think it was clear in ohio and i think it was clear across the country and my real concern, is i don't think we

necessarily talked about the things that we have done, that the president has done, that democrats have done to stabilize the economy. i don't think we really talked about the big issues. that's about growing the economy and creating jobs, securing pensions, making sure eople have upward moget. when democrats don't talk about economics we usually lose .lections we've got -- our voters didn't come out to vote. i don't think they knew who they were going to come out and vote for and why they were going to vote. they're still huge levels of economic insecurity, huge levels of economic inequality and if we don't talk to average voters, democrats, not just democrats, but people on sidelines, we're not going to et them to come out to vote.

host: could your leadership have done something different as far as preparing a message this election cycle?

why would we want to turn the keys back to a party that got us in that predicament in the first place? moving forward, we need to talk about how we are the party of economic growth, of economic opportunity, and how we build a new economy. verything should fit under that mantra. that should be what we do. we move forward. we grow the economy. we know how to do it. and if the tax cuts for primarily the top 1% were going to be great for the economy, we would be experiencing it right now. i've always said that after the epublicans controlled congress and bush was in, we didn't have to pick about what supply-side economics -- didn't have to think about what supplies and economics would look like. we experienced it. the financial institutions, the

tax cuts across the board, the disinvestment, and we saw the collapse. we saw it, we experienced it, and we should not go back there for stop democrats need to have confidence in what we do with the economy. host: nancy pelosi said what happened the other night was a wave approval. they won the election, but there was no wave of approval for anyone. do you agree with her ssessment? guest: in ohio, there was no message from the republicans. it was, we like puppies and senior citizens and women, and those are generally the commercials. but i don't think there was necessarily an affirmative vote. she is correct on that. in ohio, we got our butts kicked, and i think around the country it wasn't what we wanted. host: would you say president obama is part of the reason why you lost on election night?

guest: in part. there's plenty of plame to go around. we all need to take some responsibility. but the problem, is we didn't talk about president obama in the sense of his successes, too. like i said, the stock market, we are bending the curb on cost of health care, and we are we're protecting people from being denied for pre-existing condition. young people are able to stay on their parents' insurance. those are positive things. the stock market's higher than it's ever been. we couldn't even get out the 40% approval of obama. that's the problem you run into. you get caught in the middle of the road so you're not going to embrace a president who has had some successes. granted he's midterm of his second term. so he's not going to be as popular. but even those people were not coming out to vote, because they didn't think -- well, you are not even talking not the things you did right and you are not embracing the policies. so we are not even going to come out and vote for you. we saw a drop off in mahoney county, which is youngstown,

ohio, of over 20,000 voters from the 2010 election. 2010 was the hardest we've been hit in terms of wave election in ohio in recent history. in my largest county, we were 20,000 plus votes less that went to the polls. i don't think we were necessarily talking to them in the grand scheme about why he you should get out to vote and why it's important. host: tim ryan, representative from ohio joining us. he is a member of the budget and appropriations committee. he's here to talk to you. if you want to call, the numbers are on the screen. let's hear from brenda in houston, texas. you are on tim ryan. caller: gosh am i glad to be talking to you. i've watched you for years now as long as you have been in congress, and i applaud that you have always been

positive. you've always been supportive of this president. however, i did work -- i volunteered for the democratic party this past early -- late summer and early fall. and i have to tell you, the writing was on the wall even with our democrat onstituents. they were very upset about this immigration thing. i think that really hurt s. and it hurt me as a black woman. i'm going to find it very hard to vote for hillary because of the way the democratic party -- and i won't say all of you guys. we know the ones. how they treated this president. this is beyond humiliation, and i'm very upset about it. host: thank you. mr. ryan? guest: we are democrats. we are going to have our fights

and have our disagreements and i've disagreed with the president as well. but i think you cannot run from what you've done. if we did it, we believed in it, and we thought it was best for our people and our constituents. and you stand by it. and if the president was part of that, you stand by him as well. and i think you get credit from the voters for saying, we wanted to do health care. there are issues. yes, and we need to fix them for but we are finally starting to then the curve on cost of health care. and we are helping people who were being hogtied by insurance companies and not being able to get covered and hitting their lifetime limits. those are the things that people call my congressional office about in ohio, and we did something about it. we should be proud of that. host: republican line, gail, good morning. aller: yes, good morning for

so we are in the low 30's for the first time in a long time. it's a little silly. -- chilly. i just wanted to make a quick comment. i've never been completely for republican, completely against democratic. i've always been on the midline. but after the beginning of the obama presidency, i really ook a shift. the comments you made about been in the cost of health care down, well, actually, if you have been watching any of the news, we have a fellow who called the americans stupid. and i think he is correct. i'm a health care provider, i'm an r.n. we were proclaiming to attack insurance companies but we have increased the pocket amount that everybody pays. that's if they're employed. i know my husband is an employer, and we have certainly cut hours down and we have laid others off. as well as many other large

employers in the area. that first comment is incorrect. your second, stable economy. how many people do we have working full-time versus part-time? we don't have a stable economy anymore. the economy has very much declined. no one wants to hire a full-time employee and pay health-care care costs. i wonder why. as far as the economic stability, and loan numbers on gas, that just took place very recently. i could think back before the obama administration i was only paying $2.25 for gas. guest: a couple of things, first of all, as far as bending the cost of health care, i think that is important. i don't think you can just say, well, you know, the health care isn't working out the way we want it too. some folks act like it was

hunky-dory before the affordable care act. like everything was perfect with the health care system prior to. i think we brought some justice to it. is it perfect? absolutely not, but ultimately, it will be good for the economy because we are storing to reduce health care costs. and you think about innovation, and i know this is something we have not talked about enough. we want young people and we want people in our economy to be able to go out and innovate and start a business. when you're tied to your employer for health care reasons, you need health care coverage that they provide, you're less inclibed to go out and start a new company, start a new business, innovate, create value and hire people. now with the affordable care act, you know you're going to have access to affordable health care so you're more inclined to take a risk. we need to start having people out in our economy, taking risks, support the entrepreneurs that are out there and a variety of different ways. but the health care bill is an opportunity for us to do that. so things weren't perfect before. i know we can revise history, but we brought some justice to the health care system.

and is it per expect effect? -- is it perfect? no. host: the caller brought up statements made by john gran gruber quoted saying -- -- jonathan gruber quoted saying that the bill passed because of the stupidity of the american voter. guest: the american people aren't stupid. period. and i think the point that needs to be made is, these are very complicated issues. and there's no way you're going to reform the health care system without having to get into the weeds and have details. if you're home and working two jobs and you have a couple of kids and you have soccer practice and baseball practice, you don't time to read the affordable care act. or understand all of the implications. that's why you elect representatives to come down here and do it. but at the end of the day, if you -- and still, if you pull out the numbers and pull item by item going through the affordable care act, pre-existing conditions, should we get rid of them, there's approval forever that --

approval for that. stay on your parent's insurance until 26, there's approval for. that you go down the list individually, removing the politics and removing the president, these things are positive things that people support. host: that story says that those comments both caught the attention of the house speaker and mitch mcconnell in talking with their constituents this week about them. what do you think it means as far as the politics of the affordable care act moving forward? guest: who knows. i wouldn't be surprised if we had few more votes to try to repeal it. again, i don't think it's going to go anywhere. obviously the president's in for a couple more years. but that's going to be to the republicans' detriment. they need to start talking about issues that are important to the american people. and not polarizing and not giving ultimatums to the president. they need to sit down and create a new spirit within their caucus to compromise and move the country forward. host: we're going to have a round table discussion on the economics of health care, especially as the enrop rollment comes up. that will be tomorrow morning at 8:15. from akron, ohio, here's terry,

independent line. caller: thank you, representative. i have to say that i did vote for you. i think you are a good congressman. guest: thank you. caller: thanks to c-span. i agree that the democrats have not talked about the things that they have done that were good. for instance, the economy was in decline and barack obama kind of stepped in and everything. an also i think people in ohio forget about how he opposed the public employees. i'm a retired firefighter. but what i really want, and of course the jerry mandsering too in ohio -- jerrymandering too in high. but what i really want to speak to you about is, i'm an independent. and i really want to convey to you, but i mostly leaned

democratic in my voting, but what i want to convey, this ssue with the legalizing the -- you know, the immigration, legalizing these illegals is going to hurt, and i president is trying to get the hispanic vote, etc., but it is a way to hurt the democratic party. most people do not agree with legalizing 5 million people. i know it is not amnesty. the details, whatever, that people will stay here and it will be hard to get them out. i really want to hear what you have to say. thank you.