own minimum wage the latest poised to do so is right here in washington d c city council unanimously unanimously approved a measure to increase the city's main ways to eleven fifty an hour. but stillness be approved by dc mayor vincent brett. but this increase comes just as one of the largest employers of low wage labor walmart opens up to stores today here in washington dc. the first to walmart to ever appear in the district. one person and very vocal on this issue of the minimum wage and workers' rights. his art his very own tom harmon who made this argument on wednesday night as he was promoting his new book the crash twenty sixty activity has continued to increase and the kids on a fairly linear scale. wages flattened out starting in nineteen seventy release or what. minimum wage or now be over twenty dollars now. thus the middle. the slight teenager starting on the isle if that is simply happy course you can turn into tom show the big picture every week night at seven pm. there are key. so is the cutting edge medical science or one giant stamp. that's the question surrounding genetic testin

unanimous consent that the senate proceed to the immediate consideration of h.r. 3626, which was received from the house. i ask unanimous consent that the bill be read a third time and passed and the motion to reconsider be made and laid upon the table with no intervening action or debate. the presiding officer: is there objection? without objection, so ordered. mr. grassley: mr. president? the presiding officer: the senator from iowa. mr. grassley: i don't think that i find fault with anything that senator schumer said except as a matter of timing and when to consider those things. before making any changes to current law, congress needs to gain an understanding of printed gun manufacturing technology and its relation to permanent metal parts. there are other technical issues that should be resolved before any legislation passes that reflects scientific and manufacturing process realities. today is the day that the current plastic gun ban expires. the house has -- had already passed a ten-year extension on a bipartisan vote, and the only way to be sure that the current ban remains on the books is to pass the house bill, which the senate just did. since the democrats wish to extend current law, there is no current circumstances that demand immediate changes to the law. every previous extension of the bill has occurred on a bipartisan basis and has lasted for at least five years so that congress does not need to constantly revisit it. but before thanksgiving, my colleague, the senator from new york, offered only a one-year extension. ten years is much better. and the one-year extension proposal contained none of the substantive provisions that that senator offered with mere hours to go before current law expires. after the senate passes the house bill, which we did, congress then has a responsibility to review the issue, hold hearings, and obtain expert testimony and consider alternative legislation, including what the senator from new york has suggested. the date of expiration of the current ban has been set for many years. if anybody in the senate is so concerned about what they consider to be loopholes in the law, this obviously should have been done through hearings and the introduction of legislation long ago. we did not even see the language of the proposed amendment that i objected to until this afternoon. dropping a bill at the 11th hour without any investigation into technological situation demonstrates that the real objectives were things other than just getting an extension. under current law, the attorney general shall ensure that the rules and regulations adopted to this paragraph do not impair the manufacture of prototype firearms or the development of new technology. that's a quote from the proposed language that i objected to. the amendment from -- or that's in present law. but the amendment from the senator from new york strikes that language. it seems to me that the justice department's regulations should not impair new technology or firearm manufacturing. so i don't know why that change should have been suggested, and i'm willing to listen to anybody's arguments to the contrary, but that's where i see it and i'm glad that we've taken the action that we have. and i yield the floor. # the presiding officer: the senator from new york. mr. schumer: i thank my colleague from iowa. obviously i disagree, closing this loophole, the language may have been available this afternoon but the concept was out there for weeks and weeks sphn longer. he said he didn't object to any specifics that i mentioned here so i look forward, we're going to work hard with the senator from iowa and others who might disagree with us on interpretations of the second amendment in general to try and come to an agreement here to close a loophole that we don't think touches any second-amendment rights in any -- in any way at all. and if we can work together over the next few months, weeks, with hearings and other things and convince our colleagues that we have no intent other than to close this loophole and make sure the very law that the senator from iowa wished to renew is simply made whole given the new technology and the loophole is closed, i look forward to that opportunity. so i appreciate my colleague's remarks. i wished we had passed this amendment, i think it would have made the bill better, stronger, with fewer loopholes but that doesn't mean we can't try to do that over the next several months and i appreciate opportunity to do so with my friend, the only other charl e. in the senate. i yield the floor. the presiding officer: the senator from florida. mr. nelson: i would, too, like to thank senator grassley for arranging so that we could proceed with the current law. and i have found senator grassley to be someone who will listen, who will deliberate and who will try to do what he thinks is in the best interest of the people. in this particular case, the security interest of the people. i would ask senator grassley to consider as we meet about this over the course of the next several weeks or months, since we both fly in to washington, d.c. and if you are on flights like this senator is, there may be a good chance that there is an air marshal on that flight because the flight is so sensitive coming in to a city where only seconds from an airplane aborting a landing, only within seconds that airplane is near some of the centers of the united states government, such as the capitol, such such as the white house, such as the supreme court. and if a person were able to sneak a plastic gun through, then it seems to me that that poses a much greater threat to the security interest of this country and its people. and if it is not legal, if it is, in fact, legal to have a gun where you can remove that piece of metal, and he has been able to sneak that through the metal detectors at the place of origin of that person's flight, then it seems to me we are asking for trouble. and that in the great tradition of the second amendment of protecting people and letting them have their rights to guns, that this is an abrasion of that -- be aeration of that right that we need to duely consider and protect against. and i thank senator grassley for coming here and extending the law today. thank you and i yield the floor. a senator: madam president? the presiding officer: the senator from new hampshire. mrs. shaheen: thank you, madam president. i ask unanimous consent that the senate be in a period of morning business until 7:00 p.m. with senators permitted to speak therein for ten minutes each. the presiding officer: without objection. the senator from tennessee. mr. alexander: i noand speak for more than ten minutes when i get the floor. the presiding officer: the senator from new hampshire. mrs. shaheen: certainly i don't have any objection to that. mr. alexander: may i ask consent i be allowed to speak for as much time as i require after senator reid does what he wants to do on the floor tonight which would not interfere with the senator from new hampshire going ahead at this time. the presiding officer: without objection. mr. alexander: thank you. mrs. shaheen: thank you, madam president. and senator alexander. i came to the floor this evening to talk about the importance of congress doing its job and passing a budget. we need a budget that's going to provide certainty for our economy, that will eliminate reckless spending cuts and wil

city council unanimously unanimously approved a measure to increase the city's minimum wage to eleven fifty an hour that still needs to be approved by d.c. mayor vincent gray but this increase comes just as one of the largest employers of low wage labor wal-mart opens up two stores today here in washington d.c. the first two wal-mart's to ever appear in the district one person very vocal on this issue of the minimum wage and workers' rights is artie's very own tom hartman who made this argument on wednesday night as he was promoting his new book the crash of two thousand and sixteen productivity has continued to increase in spending sixty six on a fairly linear scale wages flattened out starting in one thousand seventy eight really sort of flat you know ninety the minimum wage right now be over twenty dollars now that's the minimum wage that's like a teenager starting out with bottles if that is simply happened. of course you can tune into tom show the big picture every weeknight at seven pm here on r.t. . so is it cutting edge medical science or one giant scam that's the question sur

and unanimous, unanimous was their view that they believe that we in the congress of the united states are not taking care of them. they've always looked to us to provide them with the pay, the benefits, the housing, the equipment, the training that's necessary to do their job. they don't believe we're doing that anymore. they believe when we enact sequestration and with a meat-ax cut across the board -- and don't ask me about it. ask general odierno and the chiefs who have testified before the armed services committee about the devastating effects of readiness, of training, of acquisition. and most of all, on the morale of the men and women who are serving who literally don't know, some of them, what they're going to be doing the next day. the next day they don't know if they're going to be able to fly their airplanes or run their tanks or have the exercises that have been planned for months and even years. they don't know because of almost day to day trying to apportion funds that are remaining in the most efficient and beneficial way. so i stand before my colleagues in the senate to

unanimous feeling? >> it's not unanimous. >> not unanimous. let me move on to spell this out. free pass back to the u.s. from russia where he's currently sitting there, under this temporary asylum in the espionage charges he's facing here in the just may be dropped. let's be clear the white house specifically today, they're shooting out any talk of amnesty for this man here in the united states. but david, you say bring him back. why? >> well, i say that he certainly deserves amnesty, except i also would say this. if the nsa is making such an offer, the means the nsa is very frightened about what other information edward snowden has that may embarrass the nsa or show that the nsa has been conducting even more criminal acts against the american people than we even know about. i think that what we need is a congressional inquiry, a congressional hearing that really brings out all of this stuff so that we know what the scope of what the nsa is actually doing in full. >> so there's a bigger concern there as far as what else could be out, whether it's whistleblowing or leaking depe

unanimous feeling? >> it's not unanimous. >> among those who thing it's a bad idea is leggett's boss, general alexander. >> this is analogous to a hostage taker taking hostages, shooting ten and saying if you give me full amnesty, i'll let the others go. what do you do. >> it's a dilemma. >> it is. >> do you have a pick? >> i do. i think people have to be held accountable for their actions because what we don't want is the next person do the same thing, head off into moscow knowing that they can strike the same deal. >> you can see john miller's full report on this sunday's "60 minutes" here on cbs. >>> in a stunning turn of events, the uncle of north korea's leader kim jong-un has been executed. he was considered kim's mentor, and until just days ago the second most powerful man in north korea, but north korea called him a traitor for what it said was plotting to seize power. he was described by state radio as a traitor to the nation for all ages. >>> in montana, a quick end to a trial of a newlywed. after telling family and police, jordan graham finally came clean about how she killed her husband. the

unanimous. househe floor of the unanimously. and one the senate senator held it up for 10 days. it finally passed by unanimous consent. should one senator be able to stop things around here like that? it is time to move ahead. get rid of the legislature at the same time to protect the rights of the minority. offer amendments that are relevant and jermaine, debate them and have a vote on it. the minority should be able to offer debate and have a vote on relatives and jermaine amendments. i proposed 18 years ago, a formula that was first proposed by senator dole many years before that. that was, on a cloture vote, the first time had to be 60 votes. then you could wait three days to file a new petition with requisite signatures. then you needed 57. if you didn't, you could wait petitions and file a and it would require 54 votes. daysyou would wait three and you would need 51. at some point, the majority could act. but the minority would have the right to slow things down. as the senator said in 1897, to give sober second thought to legislation in the senate. sober second thought. not to stop it or block it. maybe things s

asking, we have four unanimous consent requests for committees to meet during today's session of the senate. they have the approval of the majority and minority leaders. i ask unanimous consent these requests be agreed to and they be printed in the record. the presiding officer: without objection, so ordered. mr. menendez: with that, mr. president, i yield the floor. the presiding officer: the senator -- senior senator from louisiana is recognized. ms. landrieu: thank you very much. senator menendez is the leader of our effort. he and senator isakson have joined together and have put together an extraordinary coalition. i'd like just to read the names into the record for just a moment because it's a testimony in a place that can't get three members to agree on anything. we have over 20 members to agree to change the biggert-waters law. i ask the senator from massachusetts. both senators are here. the senior senator to be recognized for just a moment, and then the junior senator to speak on this issue. but senator menendez and senator isakson are our lead. again, new jersey, georgia, two very different states but very similar challenges. they have people, middle-class

unanimous? our findings were unanimous. our report was unclassified.eleased to day, what the five of us came to. >> as you worked through this -- would you say that, senator leahy's summary was -- effectively where you ended up. the nsa has gone too far? >> i say it is time to make some reform. we found much to admire in the nsa. technical capabilities are amazing. people are dedicated. we thing the way communications have changed we should have different governance and oversight for how the things work? >> what would you say -- are the most important changes? particularly in relation to the meta-data, the issue that has gotten the most attention? >> certainly has gotten a lot of attention. today if they decide, nsa analyst decide they want to look at somebody's phone record they make the decision within the nsa. we say one of the judges in the federal intelligence surveillance court should make the decision. the other big change is -- today there is one big government database queried for that. we think that its not the right way to hold this data. go

unanimously and having been elected unanimously on a pam of, let's say ten reforms you may find all ten of them are all forbidden. either practically or legally. legally because the supreme court has ruled that you can't pass anti-pornography but you can't finance these reforms. do you think ten or 20 years from now the office of governor would be like the office of the lieutenant governor of the provinces in canada, pretty much a ritual office, a handshaking office. >> well, they will have a fight with governors before it happens. i don't think there is a question. you and i are well aware that in washington in higher circles, while not too outspoke en about it, they nursed the idea that the states should become administrative districts of the federal government. that we have outworn this system of ours. they will find they are just as wrong at atbout that as the bleg hearts have been about doing away with nationalism, that people will have no patriotic pride in their country. but you talk about the impossibility to be a governor and some of the things that can happen. i'll tell you right now. i won't ask for a unanimousote. i will just settle for more people of my party in the assembly and one more in the senate. >> it is a problem, isn't it? the question so far as i understand it is have we reached the point where there is a sufficient popular frustration with the with incapacity of the states to maneuver as a result of all of the obstacles thrown in their way by the federal government that there will be a national protest which will be reflected in harmonious legislation by congress and a certain feeling of self-inhibition exercised by the supreme court. >> i will tell you. you may have let yourself in for a speech and they may have to shut me off again here. i campaigned on a belief in the people. i called ate creative society. i campaigned on a belief that the people are the best custodian of their own affairs. i think we are proving it in california. some of the people who opposed the theory who want government by mystery. they don't want government by the people. they want to keep alive the ill

unanimously and having been elected unanimously on ten reforms you might find all ten of them are forbidden, either practically or legally, legally because the supreme court has ruled that you can't pass anti-pornography legislation practically because you don't have the resources at your disposal to finance these reforms. do you think that 10, 20 years from now the office of governor will be almost like the office of the lieutenant governor of the provinces in canada, pretty much a ritual office, hand shaking office? >> well, they could have a fight with some governors before that happens and i think with a lot of people. i don't think there's any question you and i are well aware in washington and higher circles while not too outspoken about it they nurse the idea that the state should become administrative districts of the government and i think they're going to find they are just as wrong about that as some of the bleeding hearts have been about the idea that we can do away with nationalism, that people will have no patriotic pride in their own country. but the -- you talk about the impossibility to be a governor in some of these things that can happen. now, i'll tell you right now i won't ask for a unanimous i'll just settle for four more people of my party in the assembly and one more in the senate. >> well, but it is a problem, isn't it and the question so far as i can understand it is have we reached the point where there is a sufficient popular frustration with the incapacity of the states to that as a result of all the obstacles thrown in their way by the federal government to have a national protest which will be reflected in harmonious legislation by congress and the certain feeling of self-inhibition exercised by the supreme court? maybe they should be electric cu -- electrocuted. >> i called it a creative society. i campaigned on a belief that the people are the best custodian of their own affairs. and i think we're proving it here in california and i think some of the people who oppose this theory who still want government by mystery they don't want government by the people. they want to keep alive the illusion that government is so complicated that the people don't understand i

unanimous feeling? >> it is not unanimous. in the same segment, his , saysor, keith alexander he opposes amnesty for snowden. >> this is analogous to a hostage taker taking 10 people hostage, shooting 10, and then saying if you give me 40, i will let the others go. i think people have to be held accountable for their actions. what we do not want is for the next person to do the same thing with another set of data knowing they can strike the same deal. are stillicials unaware of exactly how much information he took from their system. a kansas airport technician was arrested friday after trying to carry out an alleged bomb threat. terry loewen used to security access to carry a truck that he thought was carrying explosives onto the tarmac in wichita, but it was billed must oscillate into made sure that the materials were inner. mr. loewen spent months developing a plan to use his access card to the airport to drive a car loaded with explosives to the terminal. it is alleged he planned to pull the trigger on the explosives himsel

we walk into situations where theoretically you might be elected unanimous and having been elected unanimouslyou might on a program of let's say 10 reforms you might find all ten of them are forbidden either practically or legally. legally because supreme court ruled you can't pass anti pornography practically because you don't have the resources at your disposal with which to finance these reforms. do you think that ten, 20-years from now the office of governor will be almost like the office of the left governor of the providences in canada pretty much a ritual office a handshaking office? >> well they are going to have a fight with some governors. i don't think there's any question you and i are well aware in washington in higher circles while not too owl spo n outspoken about it they nurse the idea that we have out warned this system of ours. they are going to find they are just as wrong about that as some of the bleeding hearts have been wi about the idea we can do away with nationalism that people will have no patriotic pride in their own country. but when you talk about the impossibility

at the last hearing you unanimously rejected miss hesser's appeal and upheld a unanimous vote by the planning commission creating an addition to the building. i think it was exceedingly clear to you at that time that the matter was a 6 story addition and not a 24 story project. as you are well aware there is a fairly narrow standard for granting a rehearing request. by her own admission at the podium, miss hesser acknowledged there is no new information. she was just simply pointing to the discussion that you had at the last hearing discussion that she did not agree with as the reason to bring a new hearing. i don't think that holds any water under the applicable legal standard. i will say that, if we were in court, and miss hesser was to bring an appeal to without botherer to bring an address to what was delaying us taking up your time to be sanctioned because this was the board of appeals, we have no recourse, we have to accept delay after delay. i think it really undermines the integrity of the public process that complaints like this come before you and there is nothing that can

unanimously for this item with one abstaining. item five adoption of the sf gp, we again, passed with a near unanimous vote of one substation, item six, recommended approval for a 2013 san francisco congestion management program and we have passed unanimously by the cac, thank you very much and that includes, and thank you very much and i can take any questions. >> thank you, vice chair, any questions, colleagues? >> i see no questions. thank you so much for that report. >> thank you very much. >> miss cheng, could you call the next item? let's open up this up for public comment, is there anyone that would like to speak? seeing none, public comment is closed. >> item four,recommend allocation of $4,563,090 in prop k funds, with conditions, for three requests, subject to the attached fiscal year cash flow distribution schedules and amendment of the relevant 5-year prioritization programs . this is an action item. >> thank you, and we have courtney mcgeary, and other members from the mta and bart with us here as well. good morning, with the authority this past month, we reviewed a total of 3 prop k allocation requests totaling 4.5 million, the department of public works has requested prop k funds for construction of the part let project idea

you'll have an almost unanimous, i don't think totally unanimous, but almost unanimous view that willze around the issue. one key person is janet yellen. does she want it off the table. >> jim, i know you think this is long overdue. a move to taper, the effectiveness of qe stopped a long time ago and there are serious problems that could come up from extending this, correct? you see it all over the economy. you see it in health care, of course, on swal street. ben bernanke addressing the students of george washington university. he seemed not to have the self-awareness to recognize what the fed is doing is exercise in price control. this is stocks.gov, bonds.gov. you know, you hear these medications advertised on tv and they say, you know, for heart condition. then they tell you what they'll do for you. then in the end, they say, well, it could also induce hair loss, nausea, impotence, weight loss, weight gain. >> those are good things. >> cancer. >> then you think, heart attack, what's so bad about that. >> right. >> the unintended consequences of this exercise are much more interest

unanimous feeling? >> ledgett: it's not unanimous. >> miller: among those who think making a deal is a bad idea is ledgett's, general alexander. >> alexander: this is analogous to a hostage taker taking 50 people hostage, shooting ten, and then say, "if you give me full amnesty, i'll let the other 40 go." what do you do? >> miller: it's a dilemma. >> alexander: it is. >> miller: do you have a pick? >> alexander: i do. i think people have to be held accountable for their actions. because what we don't want is the next person to do the same thing, race off to hong kong and to moscow with another set of data knowing they can strike the same deal. >> miller: this happened on your watch. a 20-something-year-old high school dropout contractor managed to walk out with, in essence, the crown jewels. did you offer to resign about the snowden incident? >> alexander: yes. >> miller: the secretary of defense, the director of national intelligence, what did they say? >> alexander: they said, "we don't see a reason that you should resign. we haven't found anybody there doing anything wrong. in fact, this could have happe

unanimous. two republicans and three democrats came together unanimously and 85% were bipartisan. good ratios for this town called washington. >> you can watch the entire interview, the exclusive interview, online. you can also watch on your mobile device, by the way, with the mobile plus app. the goto favorite casual friday attire, everyday attire for mark zuckerberg. we will hear about the hoodie next in fashion. do not pack. just rent. rent the runway goes to vegas. ♪ >> in fashion, we start with an american wardrobe staple at least to the mark zuckerberg's of the world. it is a hoodie. the greatest hoodie ever made. customers often have to wait months to get their hands on the $89 fletcher. what makes it so special? >> the apparel industry and a lot of other businesses is when you get in the this and this of rolling out a lot of retail stores or between you and the customer, you are adding layers of cost. any business deciding to support the hundreds of retail stores across the country, make a decision about their business model that will be paying for all of that, which, by d

unanimous. republicans and democrats. passed the floor of the house unanimously. comes to the senate and one senator held it up for 10 days. held everything up 10 days. it finally passed by unanimous consent. should one senator be able to stop things around here like that? it is time to move ahead. get rid of the legislature at the same time to protect the rights of the minority. offer amendments that are relevant and jermaine, debate them and have a vote on it. not that they should win it, but the minority should be able to offer debate and have a vote on relatives and jermaine -- relative and jermaine -- ger mane amendments. i proposed 18 years ago, a formula that was first proposed by senator dole many years before that. that was, on a cloture vote, the first time had to be 60 votes. then you could wait three days to file a new petition with requisite signatures. then you needed 57. if you didn't, you could wait three days and file a petition and it would require 54 votes. then you would wait three days and you would need 51. at some point, the majority could act. but the minority would have the right to slow things down. as the senator said in 1897, to give sober second though

protect people's identities and you have wild cards like unanimous who are trying to create ways where people can perform commercial transactions unanimously. and then on the other side, you've got facebook, google, the n.s.a., the f.b.i., governments like chinese and then corporations like chevron and at&t. i threw chevron on there because they're trying to basically force corporations like yahoo! and google to divulge nine years' worth of email and web browsing history from people they are trying to fight in court. and so that's -- that kind of a threat could come from any powerful company. so, i guess the whole thesis here is that the i've done nothing wrong, i have nothing to hide is a position that is informed by privilege and that if that's how you think, you're not thinking of the homosexual teenager who is living in iran or even the homosexual teenager who is living in alabama and doesn't want his parents to find out. there are plenty of good reasons to want to have different kinds of identities. thank are different on different platforms. and i'll leave you with this story. i just read a couple days ago that mark zuckerberg bought

identities and you have wild carts like -- wild cards like unanimous who are trying to create ways where people can perform commercial transactions unanimously. and then on the other side, you've got facebook, google, the n.s.a., the f.b.i., governments like chinese and then corporations like chevron and at&t. i threw chevron on there because they're trying to basically force corporations like yahoo! and google to divulge nine years' worth of email and web browsing history from people they are trying to fight in court. and so that's -- that kind of a threat could come from any powerful company. so, i guess the whole thesis here is that the i've done nothing wrong, i have nothing to hide is a position that is informed by privilege and that if that's how you think, you're not thinking of the homosexual teenager who is living in iran or even the homosexual teenager who is living in alabama and doesn't want his parents to find out. there are plenty of good reasons to want to have different kinds of identities. thank are different on different platforms. and i'll leave you with this story. i just read a couple days ago that mark zuckerberg bought

unanimously, lauren, but it was a compromise resolution. i think that's why it was unanimous. we have 3,500 african peace keepers. 1,200 french. we believe most of the french over there by the end of the year. but i think what is worth bearing in mind, the u.n. secretary general when he was asked to come up with options, one of his optioning was to send a full blue elemented force, and he said that if the conditions were dangerous on the ground and it is clear from the report, it is extremely dangerous right now, he'd need 9,000 troops on the ground. now that's double what they have agreed to do with today's resolution, appoint, i put the u.s. ambassador to the u.n. have you enough troops for the job. >> we are in this resolution, walking and chews gum at the same time. we are both strengthening the mandate and working through the funding -- on the ground. but they are not yet up to full speed. we need to address that immediately, we are going to need to increase that by mid december. >> they have asked the secretary to continue planning. they say possibly that could be deployed in the future, lauren. the similar chaos that was? at the moment. >> reporting from -- it's much worse around the rest of the country. and what we unction for the moment is there really are no french soldiers around the rest of the country. very few have been out on patrol there, and the african peace keepers for now are mainly confined. so, yes, we are seeing appalling scenes coming from the capitol. and we are hearing that potentially it is much worse in the rest of the country where there are very few peace keepers if any, and very few reporters. in some parts of the car. >> at least 25 people have been killed. the attack is said to -- it happened as ministry employees were arriving for work. security forces said they have now taken back control of the compound. >> scenes of chaos and confusion at the heart of the capitol. attackers swarmed the minister of defense, the well guarded building, there are check points at most of the roads that lead to this area. they charmed the gate, and then it was split into two groups one went to the military hospital, the other went to the ministry of defense building. there were sounds of explosions. this is what happened. they managed to get where some of the biggest on the ground. president is seen here meeting with top military commanders. and his government is accused of failing to restorieses ability to a country beset by violence and poverty. there's been no claim of responsibility. launched many attacks killing scores of soldiers. the u.s. has intensified drone operations in yemen. killing many al quaida commanders with tough group remains active in the south, where it enjoys tribal protection. there's been a large explosion. opposite national oil company headquarters. the company in central nigeria, all attackers opposite the oil company went up in flames. not clear at this stage where there are any casualties. >> gunman have shot dun an american teacher. it happened while the man was out runnin running in e eastern city. the imagine cut chemistry, no one has claimed responsible for the attack. six people are dead and several others wounded. was attacked on wednesday, suicide bombers and armed fighters attacked the compound. the gun battle with police, no group has said that it carried out the attack. >> now there are more syrians living in the jordanian province than jordanians. the influx is worrying resident that is say the refugee crieses is maiming them poorer and frustrated. >> the government says this is causing infrastructure to crumble, and that's significant funds are required to meet additional demand for services like water, sanitation, and electricity. >> the u.n. refugee agency and its partners are trying to mitigate the impact of the refugee crisis by funding clean up campaigns to improve sanitation here. an old bakery has been renovated with new equipment, to triple bread production and kate tore a larger population. they appreciate the help, but say jordanians need more support. >> all of these aid agencies handing out things to syrians should also help poor jordanian daneians. with 160 on going projects and host communities across jordan, the u.n. refugee says even more projects will come. >> the object i for 2014 is part of the regional response plan that is going to be several billion dollars is that the international community provides much more support to the host community. >> replacing run down paragraph due to a growing population of syrian and attempts to mitigate the frustration of jordanians could only mean one thing. hundreds of thousands of syrians here aren't returning to their country any time soon. stimahead this news hour, a call from stability from thailand's king on his 86th birthday. and in claims that the u.s. government gathers almost 5 billion records a day, on mobile applications. and in sport, england missed out, and australia hit out on day one of the second test. we will have the latest. john kerry's -- kerry stressed that israel's security is at the top of the u.s. agenda, in nuclear talks with iran. i believe beare making some progress. they are meeting regularly, and they have also remained -- we have remained in very close touch with both leaders as we proceed down this road. once again, israel's security is fundamental to these negotiations been john perry has also met the palestinian president. peats talks with israel were difficult and complicated. he says john kerry didn't have much to say after his meeting with the palestinian president. >> he gave breathe remarks, rather somber, i thought mr. abass, he thanks him for staying with the process, despite the difficulties that he said that in a broad raging discussion, he had touched on some of the security concerns that he discussed earlier in the day with the israelis he said he was trying to balance the palestinians desire for sovereignty in their eventual palestinian state, with israel's security concerns. that he said that he he hoped he would continue those discussions and there was a forum of israeli personalnities in washington this weekend 378 some of those may don't those discussions and he said he could come back himself in a week or so. >> china has told the u.s. vice president that it's new air defense zone in the east china sea is within international law. they are in talks before heading to south korea. washington refusing to recognize the zone. china wants pilots to tell them their flight plans. which cover as chain of disputed islands. >> tie hand's king has urged the nation to work together for stability, in a speech delivered on hiss 86th birthday. it is likely to be a temporary reprieve. >> this was a day to fill the streets and at least try to put politics aside. tens of thousands of ties came out to see they beloved king. >> i am happy to be here celebrating his birthday, i wish he could be with us forever. >> concern grows about the health of the 86-year-old who is recorded as the father of the nation. he made a brief address and spoke of the need to insure stability. >> it's said that the king is about politics, but in thailand it is never far away. the scenes of celebration were in stark contrast for the violence on the streets last week. protestors are calming for the government to go. a truce is negotiated as a mark of respect to the king. >> we have to believe in him. we should listen to him about the conflict. my feeling is he is telling us to stop fighting. >> the protest movement hasn't given up, at its head carders people turn their attention to the birth day, but they also took time to rest before theyry group and continue their push to remove the governments. >> the prime minister want military leaders and others gathers before the celebration started possibly providing an opportunity to discuss the situation. but for now, nothing has changed. neither side is backing down. >> the king's birthday provides thailand with a day of unity. but when it ends the divisions haven't gone away. al jazeera, ban cook. >> russian and german foreign ministers have arrived in the ukrainian capitol for a security meeting. thousands are angry that the president rejected a trade deal just over two weeks ago. on the visit to china decided to remain tied to russia. barn biphillips has more. >> key ya city hall, under occupation, for five days now. she says that the occupation of the building must end. as she leaves they chant shame, and revolution. but it is less and less clear where it goes from here. on the other side, foreign diplomates and ministers arrive for meeting on the security in europe. there are subdued protests outside. but the crisis is on everyone's mind, and the differences of opinion between the americans and some of the europeans on the one hand, and the russians on the other. the foreign minister -. >> we europeans are looking to ukraine, we are in no way indifferent to the fate, and to the reaction to proeuropean protests. >> but his russian counter part denied that his country was interfering in ukrainian affairs. >> i'm very surprised by speeches that we heard this morning, they weren't suitable for the agenda, it is like finger point canning is not acceptable for the osce, and which in contract with the principles of the organization. >> on the edge of independent scare, down time to the protestors but the stalemate can't last forever. the government warns that it is not playing games. it will run out of patience. >> al jazeera, key ya. >> breaking news for you, we are getting reports from yemen security committee, which says that 52 doctors and nurses some of them german were killed in the attack on the defense ministry we were reporting earlier, which involved a suicide bomber. still a confused picture. that 52 doctors and nurses including some germans have been killed in that attack. the washington post says the u.s. national security agency is directing billions of records of mobile phone locations every day. how a mobile phone can be turned into a tracking device. >> wherever you are in the world, as soon as you switch on your mobile phone, it tries to connect to the mobile network. usually through the closest tower. as soon as it does, your phone number is logged with the network, along with which tower you have connected to. which means your location. >> if you are on the move, anyone with tract your rout. by gathering and processing 5 billion records each day, to see which individuals are traveling or meeting together. here is how it works. >> you may be connected to a tower, along with 100 other people. you move down the street, and automatically connects to the next closest tower. say 20 of the 100 are moving in the same direction you move further down the road, and say just five of the original 100 people, join you. a couple more towers and some time later just one person who is mirrored your movements. the assumption, you have some reason for being together. >> it raise as lot of question. it could be a family member, or maybe just swan that works next to you, and you have the same commuting pattern each day. >> the activities are lawful, and only used to identify potential suspects. but privacy advocates say the gathering of so many mobile locations records moist of which are from people not suspected of wrongdoing could be open to abuse. has there been much reaction? >> pretty short on outrage, and that can be because they are fearing these every week. just do give you a sense of what i mean, the speaker of the house just had a press conference. he wasn't even asked about it, we will find out if anybody asks about it within the hour. usually the an mid vagues says when it comes to any sort of spying that is done overseas well that's just how government works. they aeverybody does it, but that the u.s. has better capabilities so they are better at it. >> thank you very much indeed for that update. now let's return to our top story. the french president is been talking let's speak to our correspondent who is in paris, and been monitoring what he is saying, jackie? >> yes, the president has confirmed what many were really waiting for, and that is the news that france is going to increase the number of french troops deployed in the capitol. he appeared at the end of a meeting of his defense council, that's really the war council, if you like, of key senior ministers as well as military leaders. he announced that this very easy within hours we would start to see the number of french patrols double at the moment 250 troops are on the streets. within hours, within days we would see that number come up to 500. now, just to give you an idea already currently, stationed mostly at the airport, there are 650 french troops. there is 350 over the boarder, ready to move forward. president allan said that essentially, he would acting in order to save lives as he put it. and clearly, we have heard from our reports on the ground, in the central african republic, just how urgent that need is. and the president also stressed that he was working in close coordination with african troops. how much support does he have the another deployment to french troops in a different african country? another deployment indeed, and he did make reference to that in his brief speech to the nation. he made the point that it was just under a year ago, that france sent troops to mali, now that operation was widely regarding as a success, it was an operation that was mandated unanimously by the international community. and that is what we are seeing again now in the case of the central african republic. we saw those images of the united nations vote, and overwhelming unanimous mandate to go into support african troops in order to reassure the population to secure the airports, with the objective of generally improving the security situation. certainly within france, there's always a concern. but france is the only country that had the kind of military resources in africa to do that. all right, thank you very much indeed. announcing immediate french military action in central african. thank you. >> mention scan police have found a truck of radioactivity. anyone who opened the container of medical grade material may have been exposed to he that will levels of radiation and could die within days. >>somes and police quarter off the area where the stolen material was found. 150 families from this town have been evacuated. we don't know how far this can go, it is worries be

unanimous consent to address the house for one minute -- mr. wilson: i ask unanimous consent to address the house for one minute and to revise and extend my remarks. the speaker pro tempore: without objection, the gentleman from south carolina is recognized for one minute. mr. wilson: america's greatness is heavily dependent on small business success and creating jobs. in south carolina, small businesses make up half of our economy. sadly, these hardworking business owners have been suffering devastating setbacks due to the president's job-destroying policies. more recently, the failed implementation of obamacare has forced higher taxes and extensive regulations on these employers. this unfriendly business climate has prevented small business owners from expanding and creating jobs. while traveling in south carolina's second congressional district, i continuously hear from small business, the national federation of independent business and employees who are plagued with uncertainty. smaller paychecks, inability to meet insurance requirements and reduced hours are some of the concerns. congress must work together to replace obamacare with commonsense solutions that has long proposed by congressman tom price of georgia. in conclusion, god bless our troops and we will never forget september 11 and the war on terrorism. congratulations to steve spurrier and the president for the gamecock victory saturday. the speaker pro tempore: for what purpose does the gentleman from michigan seek recognition? >> i ask unanimous consent to address the house for one minute and to revise and extend. the speaker pro tempore: without objection, the gentleman from michigan is recognized for one minute. countdown clock says 25 days and 10 hours and it is ticking. that's the countdown to an immediate cutoff of emergency unemployment insurance for 1.3 million insurance. without an extension of this vital program, they will lose their entire coverage. every dime of it. who are they? they are americans laid off through no fault of their own struggling to find jobs and recover from the worst economic crisis in 70 years. they are an estimated 20,000 veterans who have exhausted their state benefits after leaving the military and unable to find work. they are mothers and fathers to an estimated two million children. and they are counting down to december 28. so far the economic recovery has left them behind. congress must not simply do so as well. we must extend this vital insurance. i yield back. the speaker pro tempore:

unanimous. past the floor of the house unanimously. comes to the senate and one senator held it up for 10 ays. it finally passed by unanimous consent. should one senator be able to stop things around here like hat? it is time to move ahead. get rid of the legislature at the same time to protect the ights of the minority. offer amendments that are relevant and jermaine, debate them and have a vote on it. the minority should be able to offer debate and have a vote on relatives and jermaine amendments. i proposed 18 years ago, a formula that was first proposed by senator dole many years before that. that was, on a cloture vote, the first time had to be 60 votes. then you could wait three days to file a new petition with requisite signatures. then you needed 57. if you didn't, you could wait three days and file a petition and it would require 54 votes. then you would wait three days and you would need 51. at some point, the majority could act. but the minority would have the right to slow things down. as the senator said in 1897, to give sober second thought to legislation in the senate. sober second thought. not to stop it or block it.

unanimous feeling? >> it is not unanimous. dagen: not by any stretch.ouse still saying no way to amnesty for edward snowden. joining us, covert operas are demagogues and founder and president of diligence llc. where do you stand on that? it does not look like he will get amnesty, but if it finds out we find out what he really released and uncovered, would you be on board with it? >> absolutely not. i hope all is well. there is no way i would vote for snowden to get amnesty. i am happy the charge of the task force felt is was worth having a conversation about, i'm not sure i understand his logic. this idea he would need assurances, the whole thing, what he is doing is saying you don't want to take anything off the table, and i respect that. he is in a position to understand fo far more than i or anybody on the outside would know, but i don't see this ever happen. i would certainly never approve of it. dagen: this is clearly a public relations campaign the nsa is beginning or at least maybe it ends here. do you think it accomplished anything by green to d

unanimous vote. we had a unanimous vote, republicans and democrats, quite a number of times in the committee. a lot of that is due to senator levin and senator inhofe's leadership. but this time we've got a problem, and it's not going well, and i'm deeply disappointed. i believe we can do better. we must do better. and i will not be able to vote to end the debate as we go forward tonight. i thank the chair and would yield the floor and note the absence of a quorum. the presiding officer: the clerk will call the roll. quorum call:

in june, we passed the ndaa out of our committee, not unanimously but by almost unanimously and with bipartisan, strong bipartisan support to come to the floor. well, it never came up, and why it never came up is not that important right now. the fact is we're now at a position where we have to do it and have to have one coming up very -- it has to be this coming week. so anyway, we put together a bill. there is a thing a lot of people don't understand because it's not very often used, but when the house and the senate are not able to put something together, they go to the big four, they get the committee of jurisdiction. in this case, the senate armed services committee. so they had the chairman, the ranking member. the ranking member is the one that has the most rank from the minority. that's me in the case of the senate. and then the chairman of the house and the ranking member of the house. four people. we sat together ten days ago here in washington and put together a bill, taking the best parts out of the house bill, the best parts out of the senate bill, and put together this

unanimous feeling? >> it's not unanimous. >> among those thinking making a deal is a bad idea is general alexander. >> thiss akin to a hostage forle aching 50 hostages shooting 10, and saying if you give me full amnesty i will let 40 go. >> it is a dilemma. >> do you have a pic -- do you have a pick? >> i think people need to be held accountable of their actions. host: that was keith alexander, head of the nsa, speaking on 60 minutes. let's go to facebook from a -- to facebook for a quick comment from john shepherd. that comment is on facebook. you can reach out to us there on facebook.com/cspan. but skittish -- take a call from sean -- let's take a call from sean in florida. caller: i just want to call and say that i believe edward snowden is a hero and an american patriot. did was gohat he through the only sources he could to get the information out. the whole time the government has been covering this up, say it wasn't happening. i do believe he is a hero and an american patriot. i appreciate you taking my call. let's go to gainesville, virginia on her line for democrats. -- on our line for democrats. c

unanimous consent request that i would like unanimous consent to submit to the record a letter from doctor julie welch, an emergency medicine physician and educator from indianapolis. without objection, so ordered. dr. burgess? >> thank you, mr. chairman. dr. gingrey referenced an offer from the health to the president to provide a platform for the market exchange, and i would like to submit his letter for the record. and i will make this part of a question for the record that i would to a follow-up. >> without objection so ordered. ranking member? >> one is for my constituents in piscataway, anthony weill, that i referenced. another is the one that ms. schakowsky reference. you know, these are the different individuals impacted by the aca. >> without objection spent and then a third one from ms. schakowsky. >> without objection, so ordered. thank you, madam secretary, for your patience, for respond to all of our questions. i remind members they have 10 business days to submit questions for the record, and that means they should submit the question by the close of business on tuesday, december 31. another important hearing. thank you, madam secretary, for your indulgence. with that, without objection the subcommittee is adjourned. [inaudible conversations] [inaudible conversations] host: in our last hour of the "washington journal," on wednesday we take a look at recent magazine articles as part of our spotlight on magazines series. today we're taking a look at a new investigation put out by mother jones looking at the number of children killed by guns since newtown one year ago. joining us from san francisco is mark, senior editor. let's begin with what's the number? how many children have been killed by guns since the sandy hook shootings? >> the number is at least 194. we gathered this data from looking at local and national news reports over the last 12 months. that was the number of cases we were able to find. but we also know that understates the problem. many of these cases never appear in the media at all. o it's at least that number, 194. host: how were these children killed? guest: there is a mix of the type of cases. it's roughly split between homicides and accidents. it's slightly more homicides than accidents. but the accidents in particular are striking because many of these cases are occurring in the children's own homes. and there's some homicides in the homes, too. that's one of the most striking patterns we found in this data set, 127 of these 194 child's deaths had taken place in their own homes. host: and 72 either pulled the trigger themselves or were shot by another child. guest: that's right. so in many of these cases, you have children getting their hands on unsecured firearms and playing with them or pointing them at other kids and accidentally shooting and killing themselves or others. host: what does that tell you? guest: well, i think it's a pretty clear indication of a problem that a lot of gun owners are not storing their firearms safely. and this is an issue that's discussed quite a bit in the debate over guns and gun regulations. whether or not there should be guidelines in the law requiring gun owners to store their firearms in a safer manner. and i think this is the reason. although, i should add that this is a fairly poorly understood problem. there isn't great data on gun deaths in general and on child gun deaths in particular. and it would seem that if people understood the scope of this problem a little bit better that there might be more of an effort perhaps to regulate what gun owners are required to do in terms of keeping guns stored safely in their homes. host: why isn't there great data on this? how were you able to find the data that you found? guest: we looked at news reports. the question of deficient data is an interesting one. i think it's been fairly widely reported that research into gun violence is an area where there hasn't been a lot of clear work done, especially in recent years. and part of the reason for that is that the government, the federal government is essentially not allowed to research it. the gun lobby, the national rifle association and others, have pressured congress for decades now to essentially stop researching the gun violence and defund it and as a result of that we don't have great federal studies of this issue. host: what was the -- did you get a response from the national rifle association and her pro gun groups guest: not yet to this particular study. but certainly in general to the gun violence reporting that i've done at mother jones we've heard quite a bit from that side of the equation. and there's a lot of pushback on what we do. but the guns issue is an extremely emotional and polarizing one and the politician of it tend to be somewhat disconnected from the reality of it. my role as a journalist is to gather information and gather data and report on facts. and that's what we've really tried to do with this project o ill lume nate the problem of violence. we did a year long research into the mass shooting. i think that people on all sides of this issue, gun owners and gun control advocates alike would agree unanimously that we don't want to see two and three-year-old children pulling triggers of guns and killing themselves and killing each other. so the first thing you need to do with a problem in order to stop it is to understand it. and in order to understand it you need better information and better data. that's part of what we try to do with this project. host: what has the nra said about your investigations? guest: well, i don't know that i want to get into sort of repeating their arguments about what we've done because i don't think that they hold much water, to be honest. but essentially they try to downplay typically downplay the issue of casualties from guns and the danger to children. they've done that repeatedly. you'll hear things thrown around like children are in more danger from choking on their dinner and things like that. but the data that they cite ironically is the federal data that is somewhat lacking on this issue, that in a sense they helped create because of defunding governme

unanimous consent that the call of the quorum be vitiated. the presiding officer: without objection. mr. reid: i ask unanimous consent that when the senate completes itses business tatted, it adjourn until 3:00 p.m. monday, december 16 rntle following the prayer and pledge, the journal of proceedings be approved to date, and time for the two leaders be reserved for their use later i in the day. following leader remarks, theree be a period of morning business until 5:30, with the time equally divided. further, the filing deadline for the amendments to the motion to concur on the budget resolution, the national defense authorization act be 4:00 p.m. monday and finally, at 5:30 p.m., the senate proceed to executive session and resume consideration of executive calendar number 406, the nomination of ann w. patterson, as provided under the previous order. the presiding officer: without objection. mr. reid: i note the absence of a quorum. the presiding officer: the clerk will call the roll. quorum call: mr. reid: mr. president? the presiding officer: the majority leader. mr. reid: i ask unanimous consent that the call of the quorum be done away with. the. the presiding officer: without objection. viemed a told that 1*z 1824 is due for another reading. -- mr. reid: i am told that s. 1824 is due for another reading. the presiding officer: the clerk will read the title. the clerk: a bill tommed the safe drinking water act to exempt certain lead pipes, fit, fixtures and solider and flux that contain brass. the presiding officer: i object to any further proceedings with respect to the reading of this bill at this time. the presiding officer: without objection, the bill will be placed on the calendar. mr. reid: mr. president, on monday, there will be a series of roll call votes starting at 5:30 in the evening. those votes will be on confirmation of the patterson nomination for assistant secretary of state, cloture on the johnson nomination, to be secretary of homeland security, confirmation of the johnson nominee initial and potentially additional procedural votes. if floss further

unanimous consent request that i would like unanimous consent to submit to the record a letter from doctor julie welch, an emergency medicine physician and educator from indianapolis. without objection, so ordered. dr. burgess? >> thank you, mr. chairman. dr. gingrey referenced an offer from the health to the president to provide a platform for the market exchange, and i would like to submit his letter for the record. and i will make this part of a question for the record that i would to a follow-up. >> without objection so ordered. ranking member? >> one is for my constituents in piscataway, anthony weill, that i referenced. another is the one that ms. schakowsky reference. you know, these are the different individuals impacted by the aca. >> without objection spent and then a third one from ms. schakowsky. >> without objection, so ordered. thank you, madam secretary, for your patience, for respond to all of our questions. i remind members they have 10 business days to submit questions for the record, and that means they should submit the question by the close of business on tuesday, december 31. another important hearing. thank you, madam secretary, for your indulgence. wi [captions copyright national cable satellite corp. 2013] [captioning performed by national captioning institute] the house passed an agreement on the 2014 budget. the senate returns today at 1:00 eastern. harry reid expected to move forward on the budget agreement and defense authorization. you can watch the senate live on c-span2 in about 10 minutes. the group in charge of brokering the deal talked about the deal this morning on "meet the press." did not get everything we wanted. i will tell you what we did get paid certainty for the next two years. not going to tell everybody we will throw the economy in a tailspin because we have to have something. importantly, a budget agreement is about how we can manage resources so we can have the things i do care passionately about, whether education, health care, or transportation infrastructure. we were not managing our country in a way to get the things i cared about. >> my colleague spoke to your colleague, marco rubio. he called this an un-american deal. other groups are saying you and others made a promise of across the board cuts. you are going back on that and there will be consequences, they warn. >> my response is the budget control act said to replace the sequester one for one. we have exceeded that. this results in net visit reduction. >> but not much. >> we are not saying this is a massive agreement. it just gets government working. but it has $85 billion of savings to pay for $63 billion of sequester. half goes to defense, a big concern of many republicans. you do not get everything you want in a divided government. >> does marco rubio say it is un-american because he is running for president? >> i will not go into his rationale or motivations for that. i know what i think is the right thing to do. getting a budget agreement that reduces the deficit without raising taxes and prevents two government shutdowns from happening in 2014. in my opinion, it is the right thing to do. >> the senate is scheduled to be in in about five minutes. they will be moving forward on the budget agreement. you can watch the action live on c-span2 or online at www.c- span.org. tomorrow, we will be hearing from the former u.s. trade representatives about nafta on the 20th anniversary of the north american free trade span2.ent on c- also tomorrow, the outgoing chair and ceo of gm will be speaking at the national press club about the progress of the u.s. auto industry and his company's plans for his investments -- for investments in the u.s. >> if you are a middle or high school student, the video competition wants to know the most important issue congress should dress --address next year. be sure to include c-span programming for your chance to win the grand prize of $5,000. the deadline is january 20. >> the treasury secretary testified thursday before the house financial services committee about the international financial system. he also addressed u.s. financial regulations, ongoing trade talks, and iran's sanctions. this is one hour -- an hour and a half. >> this hearing is on the state of the financial system. i would like to make a few preliminary comments. i want to thank the members and staff for their flexibility in scheduling. passing of the late nelson mandela, in order to accommodate the number of members and the secretary for both his funeral and memorial services, we moved this hearing to this morning. as many members know, today the committee will feature a double feature. we will see the rest of you at 2:00 as well for our monetary policy hearing. members will have an opportunity for lots of quality bonding time today. i wish to also announce ahead of time that at 11:00 a.m., i will declare a short recess of the committee. i now recognize myself for five minutes to give an opening statement. the committee meets today to receive the annual testimony of the secretary of treasury on reforming the international monetary fund and broader international financial system. there are important questions that must be raised. hard-working american taxpayers suffer from bailout fatigue having been forced to pay for the bailouts of aig, fannie mae, freddie mac, chrysler, gm, banks big and small, and most recently the federal housing administration. many americans question the wisdom of supporting the imf and other multilateral financial institutions to take their hard- earned dollars and use them to bail out other countries. americans do not want to be part of a bailout nation a bailout planet. the important question at the outset is whether the administration's come -- credibility has been compromised and has compromised our ability to reform multilateral financial institutions. american presidents' most awe- inspiring power may not be to spy, but when he speaks the world listens. lately that moral authority of our nation has been under question. is a deal with iran that dismantles sanctions but is not in the march toward a nuclear bomb or revolutions -- revelations about spying on our allies. we live in our world weren't too many of our friends no longer trust is an too many of our adversaries no longer fear is. many americans took the president at his word when he promised that americans could keep their health insurance if they liked it. they now know better. although the last couple of months have brought some welcome news on the jobs front, americans continue to suffer through the slowest, weakest to cover in his generations, thus regardless of the wisdom, many americans downright question our ability to continue supporting multilateral financial its additions like the imf. >> when president obama took office, poverty is up, income inequality is up, the debt has never been higher, small businesses are drowning in the greatest sea of red tape and our nation's history, and a number of americans in the labor force are at its lower us level in 30 years. five years into these policies, hardship and anxiety abound. just listen to what i hear from my district in the fifth financial district and texas. nancy writes i have been looking for it up or close to two years. god has blessed me with many jobs on and off but that does not pay the bills. who said "i have spent more time on employed in the last four years than i have employed." from alba in my district writes that he is had to close his business and says "i am 70 years old and i have tried to find a job, but nobody wants to hire a 70-year-old when so many younger people are out of work." better than deserve the results of this administration's economic policy, which brings us back to the central truths josh you cannot --you cannot strengthen the global economy without strengthening the american company. both fundamental tax or from an tax relief, freezing red tape that is hindering job creation, giving 1/6 of the economy, that is health care, back to the american people. that means ceasing to spend money we do not have. the single greatest threat to a stronger economy is our growing national debt. witness the national debt clock to my left and right. it is a debt that has mushroomed under this president theodore never in our history have so few under this president. never in our history have so few indebted so many. it is unsalable and i believe to be immoral. president dismisses this threat at every opportunity and i fear leads a parade of washington debt deniers. under the current policies we have it is not a question of whether a debt crisis will come, it is a matter of when. for the sake of our economy, our children, our freedom i call on the president to work with our congress now. our nation deserves better. i now yield six minutes to the ranking member for her opening statement. >> i want to thank the chairman for holding this hearing and i'm delighted to welcome you secretary lew to our committee to testify today. i would like to discuss what i believe to be one of the biggest social economic and political challenges we face today both domestically and internationally and that is the problem of growing inequality. over the past 30 years income and equality in the united states has been steadily increasing. this was the case even during periods of growth. before the financial crisis levels of inequality in the united states reached peeks not seen since the late 1920's. while other committees have also experienced rising income inequality, the most shocking shortcomings are right here in the united states which has the highest level of inequality of any advanced industrial nation. in fact today 20% of the income in our country goes to the top 1% of americans. if you look at inequality of wealth, it's even worse. the top 1% holds about 40% of the country's wealth. the gap between the rich and poor in america has become a chasm. the gains from growth during the recent recovery have acude to the wealthiest people in society. almost 95% of the income gains since the recovery began have been captured by the top 1%. this means that the most unequal advanced industrial economy in the world is becoming even more so. i recognize that in a capitalist system some degree of inequality is necessary for the function of a market economy since it creates incentives to work hard and take risks. but left entirely to its own the market system will produce more inequality that is economically necessary. here in our country we have much more inequality than is necessary for efficiency. i believe this is a moral problem from the standpoint of equity. but excessive inequality undermines social and political cohesion. it has also recently been shown to have negative effects on growth and stability as well. recent research at the i.m.f. has shown that excessive inequality slows growth because depressed earnings lead to weaker demand and lower consumption. reducing inequality is increasingly understood to contribute to economic growth. inequality is also a political problem. we now have an increasing degree of resistance on the part of many americans to new trade agreements because they see themselves as victims of globalization rather than as participants in its benefits. i believe our international economy policy has in fact been too one sided, too focused on elevating the interest of capital over all other considerations. this was based on the misguided believe that unfettered markets would create wealth and stability and trickle benefits down to others in society. this isn't what has happened. in fact, one of the most important lessons we learned from the recent financial crisis is markets must be deeply embedded in systems of governance. markets are efficient and self- correcting has received a modern blow. i believe in capitalism and i believe the markets are the main engines of wealth creation in our country and elsewhere. but in order to be truly supportive of the free market i believe you must also be supportive of government. we need to have an appropriate set of public policies in place to reign in the excesses of the market to help maintain stability and to ensure capitalism and growth are shared. we need to do a better job of dealing with equity questions at home. we should be increasing the minimum wage, extending unemployment insurance and other assistance for those in the u.s. clustered in the low skilled end who are disadvantaged by globalization. until we do that and people begin to feel secure at home we will not have the political support we need for more active engagement by the united states with the international economy. mr. chairman, i thank you for holding this hearing today. some of what i have eluded to in my statement are issues that are being dealt with as we consider the budget today. and these issues i have eluded to include the unemployment benefits that i understand may not be in the budget agreement. also i believe providing trade adjustment and other assistance for those i pointed to in the low skill end are issues that we have not sufficiently dealt with and i am looking forward to engage you and others on these issues so that we can get at how we will deal with this income inequality that is a central theme of my testimony today. i yield back the balance of my time. >> the chair now recognize it is the gentleman from california, mr. campbell for three minutes. >> thank you, mr. chairman. and welcome secretary lew. your testimony is required by the international institutions act. there is no shortage of issues we can discuss. i will let my written statement stand for itself. one of the things i believe you will discuss is the i.m.f. as a reminder, the 2009 congress authorized $100 billion commitment to the i.m.f. in an account called new arguments to borrow. now there is discussion of transferring $63 billion of that into a permanent paid in capital. there is a lot of concern about this, secretary lew. we don't believe this is just a bookkeeping entry this. this puts this $63 million significantly at risk where currently it is not. secondly there is a lot of concerns when we are cutting domestic issues is this a time we should be increasing funding to first world countries around the world and there is some concern of whether a lot of this money could go to european countries and yes they have crisis and problems but can't they deal with those within europe without the u.s. taxpayer being involved. there is concern about moral hazard. would the i.m.f. by making more loans to countries that are deeply in debt be encouraging that kind of indebtedness rather than trying to encourage these countries to get out of their debt and not to spend so much and borrow so much. and finally there are reforms involved with the i.m.f. and this addition contribution and concern about whether those are really enough, whether they go far enough to change the governance of the i.m.f. if the administration f you, if -- if you, if the president are committed to and want this $63 billion transfer, we need a couple of things. we need three things actually. we need first of all, you to make a formal request which has not yet been received by this committee for this money for this transfer. secondly we need you to address these issues. and we need you and we need the president, if this is a priority for $63 billion of u.s. taxpayer money, we need you and the president to volley art late why articulate why this is a priority in this era of limited budgets and why these concerns that people have on this committee are not well founded. >> thank you. i look forward to your testimony. i yield back mr. chairman. >> the chair now recognize it is gentleman from illinois, mr. foster for one minute. >> thank you, mr. chairman. thank you for joining us today. mr. secretary, when you left your first tour of duty in the white house in 2001, we were paying down our debt to the tune of a couple hundred billion dollars a year and down to zero by 2008. in the next eight years we saw the surplus reversed and the deficit exceeding $1 trillion a year in the next eight years. we're also sitting on eight straight years of uninterrupted job growth and we saw in the eight years following your first depart you're zero net job growth. 20 million people entered the job market with zero jobs produced for them. we've made significant progress since entering the worst recession since the great depression. we've seen private sector job growth and there is much work left to be done and i thank you for appearing today. >> the chair recognizes the gentleman from washington for one minute. >> thank you, mr. chair. secretary lew, thank you for your service to country and for appearing at this hearing today. but the hearing i am most interested in is taking place at your treasury department as we speak. the bank secrecy act advisory group is meeting right now and confronting the question of how to allow legal marijuana businesses to access the banking system. as you know, the voters in my state and colorado last year approved initiatives to make marijuana legal for adults. these policies go into effect in the new year but we need cooperation from the federal government to make it work. if federal banking regulations continue to prohibit marijuana businesses from using the banking systems, these all cash businesses will be a manage net -- a magnet for robberies and organized crime. you have the power to prevent that secretary. i hope the advisory group agrees on a new workable guidance today and i hope you swiftly approve it. >> the time of the gentleman has expired. the chair recognize it is gentle lady from new york for 30 seconds. >> it's my pleasure to welcome the secretary from the great state of new york and new yorkers are proud of your public service. my question concerns g.s.c. reform. you mentioned our growing economy and your main job is to create jobs. many economists have testified one of the most important things we could do is bring certainty to housing finances. i hope you'll comment on the efforts of the administration to support housing finances reform uncertainty in that area. welcome. i look forward to your testimony. >> today we welcome the testimony of the honorable jack the secretary treasury of the united states. secretary lew appeared before our committee earlier this year so i believe he needs no further introduction. the secretary's written statement will be made part of the record. welcome to the committee. you are now recognized for your oral testimony. >> thank you, mr. chairman, ranking member waters, members of the committee, i appreciate the opportunity to testify today and thank you for the flexibility of rescheduling so a number of us could attend the memorial services for nelson mandela. economic concerns are improving in advance countries led by the united states. despite political head winds our economy has been growing. our business versus created more than 8 million jobs. we have more to do to create jobs, accelerate growth and put our economy on a firmer foundation. economic progress depends in part on the global economy and the global economy faces many challenges. the long recession in the euro area seems to be ending. europe is in a position to reduce unemployment which remains high in many countries. in japan, the authorities have taken forceful action to begin ending deflation. japan needs to undertake structural reforms to strengthen domestic demand growth. some emerging market versus slowed. emerging markets need to make reforms that increase their resilience and address growth. china's new leadership announced bold commitments to reform. the character of these reforms will shape their transition to consumer-led growth and away from export growth. an important part of my job is to create the most favorable environment for jobs and businesses. the financial institution and monetary fund and banks are indispensable in this effort. we must preserve our leadership in these institutions. that's why it's so important congress approve the governance reform. at the g-20 summit in 2010 we secured reforms that preserved the veto without increasing the u.s. financial commitment to the i.m.f. right now u.s. approval is the only remaining step needed for these important reforms to go into effect. if we fail to act we risk a loss of influence at the i.m.f. to implement the quatta reforms the administration provided draft legislation to reduce u.s. participation and increase the size of the u.s. quota in the i.m.f. by an equal amount. our investment is safe and sound. when the i.m.f. lends it does so to portfolio conditions and with safeguards it's repaid and it's repayment record is outstanding. investments also provide substantial returns. these institutions leverage our limited contributions and multiply our impact by attracting contributions from other nations. they also effectively promote our national security and economic priorities including opening up markets for u.s. businesses abroad. it's important to note that the u.s. will be making new commitments to the international development association of the world bank in the african development fund this year. these are the two largest sources of finances for the world's poorest country and their impact is enormous. as we maintain our commitments to the financial institutions, it's crucial we continue to strengthen the world's financial system. the united states has led the global effort on regulatory reform with dodd-frank largely completed at home. on tuesday the volcker rule, a centerpiece of these reforms was fulfilled. this rule is strong and comprehensive. it will change behavior and practice across our financial system. it also full fills the president's vision and statute's intent by setting tough but workable restrictions while continuing banks to perform necessary functions. in 2014 we'll work with the g-20 and financial stability board to promote high quality relations. we'll focus on advancing implementation of basil 3. and the high quality capital standard is met. we'll also focus on strengthening arrangements for cross border resolution of large financial institution, promote swift implementation for over the counter derivatives markets, and develop a roadmap to address risks posed by shadow banking. we've been at the forefront of efforts to advance key national security and foreign policy goals. nowhere have our efforts been more concentrated than using sanctions to advance our policy and prevent iran from obtaining a nuclear weapon. together with our international partners and with congress we have built the most effective sanctions regime in history. even as we explore the possibility of a long term agreement with iran that would provide assurance that iran cannot obtain a nuclear weapon, we will continue to enforce our sanctions vigorously as our action this morning imposing sanctions on more than a dozen entities demonstrates. across the global landscape there is much work ahead. with your support i am confident we will continue to protect america's interest abroad and at home. thank you and i look forward to your questions. >> thank you, mr. secretary. the chair yields himself five minutes for the purposes of questioning. as o.m.b. director in february of 2011. you were quoted at saying it's an accurate statement that our current spending will not be increasing the debt. we've stopped spending money we don't have. you said that while introducing the president's 2012 budget which add $12.5 trillion to the national debt over a ten year budget window and under your watch as omb director, $1.4 trillion was added to the gross national debt. i'm trying to get some insight into the administration's view of our national debt. do you still stand by those comments? is there some context for those comments? >> at the time i was trying to explain the difference between a primary balance, primary surplus and spending, new spending, new commitments that are being made. the definition of primary balance is when the only deficits are related to paying interest on the national debt. and other than that we are covering all of our expenses. >> let me then move on to a statement the president made fairly recently about six weeks ago. "don't pretend as if america is going bankrupt at a time when deficits have been cut in half." isn't it true, mr. secretary, these deficits have only been cut relative to the largest deficits in our nation's history save world war ii? >> if you look at the deficit since 2009, we've seen the most rapid reduction in the deficit -- >> weren't these the largest in our nation's history save world war ii? >> we inherited a very large deficit and out of control. >> if you are unaware, i would have your aids take a look into it and i think you will find it probably is true. also, c.b.o. released their latest long term out look. have you had a chance to look at it? it came out about six weeks ago. >> i'm aware of it, yes. >> and in that outlook under current law or current policy, these deficits come down temporarily until 2015 and rise thereafter with no end in sight, isn't that true mr. secretary? >> mr. chairman, i came here prepared to discuss a wide range of issues. i have not reviewed the cbo report in detail. i can speak generally about this issue and i'd be happy to. >> isn't it true the administration has never submitted a budget that balances in ten years, 50 years or anytime. >> the administration has submitted budgets that took a fiscal situation out of control and brought it in control. we've reduced the deficit. >> has the administration ever submitted a budget that balances over any time span -- >> i don't believe that balances >> i get to ask the questions here. so if you don't know or you -- >> there is a point when it balances in the far distant future but it's not in the ten year -- >> not according to the budget office. so according to whose analysis? is this treasury's analysis, omb's analysis, whose analysis in -- >> mr. chairman, i'm happy to look at the projections of the budget. i did come to testify on a wide range of -- >> let me move on to the debt ceiling. i think you know every package has been attached to a debt ceiling. even today's budget control act, every president in your lifetime and my lifetime has negotiated on a debt ceiling. i've had our capable staff research the issue. the debt ceiling tends to be the early warning system that spending is out of control, yet on september 15 of this year the president took the unprecedented radical action of stating "i will not negotiate on the debt ceiling." so is it the position of this administration that if congress does not functionally repeal the debt ceiling and allow the president to spend what he wishes that he is threatening default on our sovereign debt? >> mr. chairman, i would disagree with the characterization of the debt ceiling as an early warning. the debt ceiling is at the very end. all the decisions congress makes on entitlement programs that determines -- >> my time is almost up -- are you aware of any other president in our lifetime who has taken the radical position of stating he will not negotiate deficit reduction on the debt sealing? >> mr. chairman, i think we learned in 2011, we learned again just this past october that treating the debt limit the way congress did put our economy in grave danger. every president in my lifetime has said the same thing. it is imperative to raise the debt ceiling and congress' responsibility to take that action. >> the time of the chairman has expired. and i would say every president in your lifetime has negotiated on the debt ceiling. the chair now recognizes the ranking member for five minutes. >> thank you, mr. chairman. i would like to see if i can get a clearer understanding about where we are in relationship to finance discussions and trade talks with europe. i sent a letter to you and the president basically stating my position on whether or not we would be including financial services provisions in a trade agreement and it would be undermining to address cross border oversight. and i notice in a "wall street journal" report that secretary lew poured cold water on a push by the european unit market regulator to include negotiations of a financial services regulation in e.u.-u.s. trade talks, but then i also note that there is another article that talks about the possibility that we are softening our position. so i would like some clarification from you today about where we are in those discussions. >> congresswoman waters, i think the issues of working on an international bases to make sure that we have a race to the top to the highest standards possible in terms of financial stability is very important. we work actively through the g- 20 and financial stability board to try and drive that process. i'm actually of the belief and am proud that the united states is a leader. that we've taken decisive action, the most decisive action of any country in the world after the deep recession and economic crisis of 2008 and 2009. i've said i do not believe trade agreements are an appropriate place for to us dilute the impact of the steps that we've take on the safe guard the u.s. economy. and i think that we should make a call to the world community in the appropriate form like the g- 20 and f.s.b. to try and drive that race to the top. i've said that in public and in private conversations with the europeans. obviously a trade agreement is very important. i think it would open up opportunities for u.s. economic growth and european economic growth. i'd point out europe is 20% of the u.s. export market, so europe's core economy is important to us and keeping that line of trade open is important to us. i look forward to making progress in the trade negotiations and i look forward to having progress in terms of opening up access to financial markets for even more u.s. competition and more u.s. investment. >> i would like to try and understand how much pressure are you receiving to introduce financial regulatory issues into these negotiations? >> the issue has come up really for the entire time that i've been secretary since february, march. it has been an issue that europeans have raised. i responded as i just did in response to your question. i made some pretty public remarks last week where i called on our international partners to work through the g-20 and f.s.b. to tighten standards. i've tried to be clear on what our policy is. >> of course you are aware, you understand that efforts are already under way to deal with cross water financial regulations, including the g-0 and financial stability board. so our concerns and some of the criticisms from other law makers are that other administration trade initiatives would effectively side track domestic regulation in favor of international laws. and some of our members are saying they fear the ambitious transpacific partnership could create rules affecting technology development. >> congresswoman, on the financial issues i'm quite familiar with it. on the technology issues that's that is an issue that the u.s. trade representative would be more appropriate to address. on the financial issues, i've been clear in every conversation that i've had that we are going to in the text of agreements promote opening markets for u.s. access, having standards consistent our own, and i have been very clear that watering down in any way u.s. regulatory standards is not appropriate in trade agreements in terms of protecting our financial markets, our financial system and our economy. i do think separately we have to discuss what does it mean to harmonize across international boundaries, and we've seen very constructive developments where we took an initial action and the international community responded and there is a reconciliation so we can have the world community reach the u.s. standard. we may have to make some conforming changes for that to work -- >> the time of the gentlelady has expired. the chair now recognizes the gentleman from california, mr. campbell, for five minutes. >> thank you, mr. chairman. let me go back for one minute. one thing i know an e-mail from a staff member with language does not constitute a formal request. if congress is to consider the money we need a formal request from you according to the law. i don't want to get into too much minutia on that. but one thing is what this thing costs and would you agree that if you move this $63 billion into paid and capital it is not without risk? >> congressman, i think if you look at the history of the i.m.f. it supports the statement i made there is very little risk. >> but it's not zero? >> i believe it's awfully close to zero. >> shouldn't we have cbo tell us what they think? >> cbo has looked at this. if i could go back because i think the question of request is tied to the fact, and we've been trying to be flexible. we proposed this to be done as an authorization as a mandatory provision. we heard back they preferred to deal with it as an appropriations matter. at the time cbo -- authorizing -- >> authorizing committees like this don't like things that go directly through appropriations without the people looking at the issues. so we would i think on a bipartisan basis prefer it be done that way. we think cbo should score this at risk. is the president supportive of this transfer? >> yes, the president is very much supportive of it. he's told me it's a very high priority in terms of our staying at the strong point we're at. on the cost side c.b.o. scored it. c.b.o.'s score was in the neighborhood of $300 million. it was not in the neighborhood of $63 billion. >> there are different ways they score things and if they score it on a risk bases. we have to look at that. let me get into the issue of trade. i hear you say that you think the g-20 is a better venue for negotiating financial services harmonization, than with the european tread agreement. europeans make the same argument at the g-20 they will here. why is that any better than trying to harmonize as best we can through a trade agreement given how the borders in financial matters have dropped so much? >> i think if you look at the progress we've made internationally since 2009, the g-20 and f.s.b. have been effective places to work through complex financial regulatory matters. i don't think the trade context is the ideal place for that to be done. the people at the table are not necessarily the right people and the mechanisms already exist in the g-20 and the real point regardless of where we do it is the core issue. >> you had a meeting in brussels on november 27. >> i don't remember the date but yeah. >> what was the outcome of that meeting with the europeans? >> i think, as i acknowledged in my response to congresswoman waters, i've discussed this a number of times with the europeans. they do make the argument it should be in the trade agreement. we make the argument it should be in the g-20 and f.s.b. wherever we do it they elude. our protection of the u.s. economy is the core principle that applies wherever we are doing business. >> is our position that we have the perfect financial regulation worldwide and everybody else in the world should copy us? i fail to understand why talking with the europeans about this understanding better what they want to do why that's a problem. what is the risk to the u.s. financial system to do that? >> none at all. we talk to the europeans and to the asian partners in the g-20 and the f.s.b. we learn from each other and take best practices from each other. we are very open. the question is in trade agreement whether it's a question of financial regulation or environmental regulation is a trade agreement the appropriate place to do it? normally the pressure is to lower standards on things like that and that is something we think is not acceptable. >> if i can stop you. i only have a few seconds. the chairman and i have written several letters to you about this. we think and urge you to try at the european level because the purpose of a trade agreement is to facilitate trade that benefits both economies. we can do that in the financial services area and we should do it. i yield back. >> our core goal is consistent. we think we can achieve an agreement that opens up markets for even more robust, cross- border trade and relations and that's our goal. our issue is not that we don't want to coordinate we do. it is critically important and one of the biggest priorities we have. >> the time has expired. the chair recognizes gentleman from missouri, mr. clay, for five minutes. >> thank you, mr. chairman. as you know an earthquake devastated haiti in 2010. the american people and global community rallied to provide relief to the haitian people. as the center for economic policy and research points out in a recent report, despite billions of dollars pledged to build back better haiti more than 350,000 haitians remain internally displaced and it is unclear what impact our funds have had. secretary, can you give members of this committee a progress report post earthquake humanitarian reconstruction development efforts in haiti? >> i would have to get back to you on an update. i was deeply involved in putting together the haitian relief package when i was deputy secretary of state. and i have not had the opportunity in the last few months to become familiar with the detailed up to date assessment. but i'm happy to do so and get back to you. >> this is the second time i've inquired about this and one of your deputy secretaries was supposed to get back to me a couple of months ago and i haven't heard anything. >> we'll be happy to get back to you. i was not aware of that. if you look at the relief response in haiti, we responded quickly with the emergency assistance. we responded generously with economic assistance. i know the question you are asking is the efficacy of that effort. i share the concern that when we go in we have to be successful and i'll look at it and get back to you. i was personally very committed to putting that package together and i'll get back to you on that. >> i look forward to your response. on the euro zone economic growth is a continue challenge with the g.d.p. growth at minus 0.1 in the e.u. for 2014. european commission president stated that the economic austerity policies in europe have reached their limits and they should receive minimum political and social support. he also pointed out that e.u. should focus on growth measures in the shorter term as reforms in the public finances sector should take time to have any effect. additionally, a recent report by the i.m.f. states that too much austerity is self-defeating. that means that the continuous fiscal austerity for some countries in the eurozone, especially in the south, leads to a deeper recession, in most cases deeper than projected. in this vein how do you think the u.s. more particularly through it's participation in the i.m.f. could channel its efforts in alleviating the harsh consequences of this crisis that has brought traumas to these countries? >> we have been deeply involved in discussions on the response to europe's economic challenges. i know in my own conversations with finances ministers around europe i've made the case very strongly that europe needs to worry about growth, that it looks at the weakest economies in europe, it needs to stay focused on the reforms. but they also have to look at the enormous unemployment and the economic effect and the social effect that that has. i think we've made some progress in these conversations and i don't want to exaggerate how much progress we've made. i think you see more flexibility in terms of timetables for fiscal consolidation. you're seeing recognition that the structural changes are hard and as countries make them they need to have breathing room. but you are seeing pressure to stay on the sustained path. it is not sustainable for europe's economies or their national finances to be in a place that is unsustainable. but i think when you look at 20 and 30 plus% unemployment rates that has a serious impact on domestic demand and potential for growth and instability. i believe we are making progress. i think the i.m.f. is sensitive to the tradeoff. if you look at the g-20 communication over the last years they express recognize the view i'm expressing. >> thank you. >> thank you, mr. chairman. thank you, mr. secretary, for joining us today. the treasury released guidelines on financing coal fired power plants in emerging markets. i represent a state that exports 30% of the total coal exports because we can't burn them at home and are having difficulty with the president's war on coal and now seems like it's an international war on coal. explain to me this policy and are you really part of your stated goals were supposed to be fast growing african countries represent new opportunities for u.s. businesses. what kind of energy development is going on if we can't help them with the cheapest most affordable and reliable base load energy production that we have around the world? >> our policy on coal and on the climate impact is one i know we have some differences on. we believe very strongly that we need to drive towards developing technologies that have a less adverse impact on the climate situation. so we have taken the view that we need to at home use fuel more efficiently and develop energy technologies. we believe we have potential to export technology overseas. you look at the developing countries, in some cases hydro electric power is abundant power . in many cases highly distributed renewable energy. >> are you talking like wind and solar? >> wind and solar. >> and you are aware how much we have to subsidize it here to make any benefit? >> it is something we have dedicated a lot of energy to it. we believe we are getting there and we believe to meet our objectives on climate, it's important we have a consistent approach internationally. >> i don't disagree on the ultimate goal to make it cleaner, more efficient and less emissions. i'm all for that. but i feel like if you are cutting off the emerging markets which are the fastest growing markets, from being able to finances these kinds of facilities, you're going to stifle innovation in this country because universities and such aren't going to devote the resources to it when they think they are looking at a deadened here. not only from the human element of these folks in africa who can't even access just baseline power generation. i'm very concerned about it. and another thing is i represent a lot of natural gas. we have a glut of natural gas in this country. it's wonderful. it creates jobs all down spectrum and you know this in your position. we are embarking on should we be exporting our natural gas. is part of this global initiative -- natural gas as a carbon fuel -- is that the next thing that won't have any kind of financing opportunities through the m.l.b.'s? >> we've been developing natural gas resources in this country aggressively and other less emitting fossil fuels. we have been encouraging the development. i think the export question is a different one. the department of energy has responsibility for reviewing natural gas export license proposals. obviously it's been a source of enormous strength in our economy we've had an energy revolution, where the cost of energy into production has made the united states a much more attractive place to invest and we are anxious to continue that. invest, and we are anxious to continue that. i would defer to the department of energy to review these export licenses and would be happy to follow up with you on that. on the question of the need for power in the third world, we totally agree. one of the president's initiatives is power africa which is we need to make sure that the african continent has access to electricity to fuel economic growth. we are working side by side in the international community to be very strong partners in that. >> and many of these countries that you are working with, germany for instance, are building themselves more coal fire power plants in their own country because they had to shut down their nuclears because of the potential negatives there. i am very concerned about this because it hurts the american innovator and american jobs and picks winners and losers in this country. i love living in west virginia, but this administration has picked us as one of the ones to lose and i resent that. thank you. >> the chair recognizes the gentleman from texas, mr. hinojosa. >> thank you, mr. chairman. secretary, thank you for your testimony. thank you for being here was today. i'm going to ask a question outside the realm of international finances. i would like to first ask you about an issue i have great interest in. as co-chair of the financial and economic literacy caucus i am am interested in the progress of the financial literacy and education commission which you are chair, and also the upcoming president's advisory council on the financial capability for youth which the treasury will coordinate. it was coordinated by congress. what is your personal philosophy on financial literacy and what do you hope to achieve in 2014? >> i am a strong believer in financial literacy and have been for a long time. i think that people have to make informed decisions when they make financial decisions in their life, and for all too many americans it's a mystery when they make those decisions. i've taken it very seriously. i've gone to several meetings. i've worked with the director on these issues. we have made it clear that it's a matter of importance to us personally that we continue to make progress in this area. i actually think if you look at the work that the cfpb has done, they've made a lot of progress creating the tools for financial literacy. part of the challenge that is people have to understand the documents that they end up looking at when they enter into tractions. part of the is making sure the documents are understandable. if you look at the disclosure forms that they recently issued, it is approached a level where people who are not professionals actually understand the documents they are about to sign. but it has to work in both directions. you have to increase the awareness and education of the people in the economy. but you also have to make sure that the transactions are not so masked in language that is not comprehensible understand pages pages and pages of detail that hide the key points. and i think they've made significant progress in that area. >> i look forward to working with you this next two years and try to take it to a much higher level. i'm going to move into international situation that we're discussing. in your testimony that i read you state europe has made great gains toward financial stability. like you, i am cautiously optimistic about the improving economies of the united states and europe. secretary, how confident are you in the health of the economies of the eurozone and what are the indicators that you are watching the closest? >> i look at the progress of the eurozone and think about watching on a daily basis in the spring and summer of 2012 when there was the real fear that any day could bring a crisis. and we've made a lot of progress from there. there are still a lot of problems, difficult situations that need to be worked through, tough structural decision that have to be implemented and risks that are still there. but it's not in the same place of fear that there is going to be an immediate crisis that it was just a year ago. i think they've made a lot of progress and have a lot more to make. i this the g.d.p. measures are significant. they were negative broadly and now they are positive broadly. it's not equally distributed. some of the committees particularly in northern europe are doing much better. if you look at the economies of europe there is a correlation between how well they are recovering and how much they embraced the need to make tough changes. one of the things we continue to do is try to be very understanding of how hard that is and the impact it has on the short term, but to keep the pressure on because that's the path they need to follow. >> i've read some of the countries like greece and italy and spain and portugal have very high unemployment rate from the group of 18 to 25 years of age, very similar to the problems we have in the united states. how are they addressing that? >> they do have very high unemployment rates and the youth unemployment rate is very high. i think one of the reasons i mentioned earlier that we're seeing some additional flexibility on timetables is recognition of that. excuse me congressman, i'm getting over a cold. this has been a challenge all week. >> take your time, mr. secretary. but you can give a short answer since the time of the congressman has expired. >> my voice is not coming back. sorry congressman, i've been losing my voice all week. if you'll just bear with me. the economy in europe is i think moving in the right direction. some of the structural changes are significant in terms of opening opportunity to young workers. one of the keys is opening up the channels of credit so that small and medium size enterprise versus access to capital. >> the time has expired. the chair recognizes the gentleman from new jersey for five minutes. >> thank you, mr. chairman. today i wanted to focus my time on two important issues, that's accountability and transparency to the american people. i've been quite disturbed at this administration's clear pattern of stonewalling anyone who dare shines the light of day into the inner workings of this administration whether it's benghazi to eric holder's refuse toll turn over key documents to a lack of cooperation with obamacare failed implementation. requests have been met with silence or refusal by this administration. this pattern has continued at the department of treasury under your leadership. mr. clay had a simple question and your answer was don't blame me, i didn't know, it was my staff. in my case i sent a letter to you asking three simple questions regarding the i.r.s. scandal. first i asked when it was first time you became aware of the i.r.s. targeting groups independent on the i.g.'s investigation. curiously the answer came not from you but from some assistant secretary a month and a half later basically refusing to answer the questions. the second question i asked was whether you attended any meetings with then commissioner and whether there was any decision discussions at the concerning the i.r.s. targeting any organizations and a couple of other simple yes or no questions. again, a refusal from you to answer yes or no questions. so then after several months more passed i called your office and said would you give me five would you give me five minutes on the phone and your answer was no, i cannot talk to you, too busy. so i offered to have a meeting with you, not in my office. i agreed to go to your office at your convenience anytime to discuss this and your answer was no you were too busy for the last six months to meet with a member of congress. is it appropriate for you or your staff to deny even a five minute phone call or a discussion with a member of congress on important issues relevant to them? that's a yes or no question. >> i answered congressman clay's question directly. >> can you answer mine now? >> i will follow up on it and get back to him. you and i went back and forth at the hearing. i appeared before. i gave you all the information i had and that remains the case now. >> you never answered the three questions in the letter so to this day have you not. do you think it's appropriate you would not pick up the phone and talk to a member of congress? >> i have responded to your question on multiple occasions. >> you did not. in six months i have not gotten an answer from you. i still am not getting an answer from you. i think it's deplorable you won't answer a member of congress. >> on the question of the letter it is for generations traditional for the assist ant to respond -- >> your assistant did not answer the question. when i followed up and asked to speak to you, you would not answer it. let's move on because obviously you are continuing in the pattern of this administration of not answering simple yes or no questions. i'm wasting my time because you are wasting the american public's time. that's a simple yes or no question. let's look at the volcker situation and the rules that have just come out on this. do you believe there is any negative impact on the corporate >> will there be any negative impact upon the corporate bond market? >> i think -- >> yes or no? >> it's not a yes or no. it's a complicated issue. i'm happy to respond to you but it's not a yes or no question. we make sure they -- >> let's stop there. let's stop there mr. secretary. you are saying that it is okay for them to take on risk such as the unsovereign debt but not corporate dealt? you created exceptions so they could invest in detroit which is a failed bankrupt city, they could invest in foreign banks? that's a yes or no question. >> they protect our markets and protect taxpayers from being exposed to inappropriate risk. i think the agency did an excellent job striking that balance to keep growth going and protect the taxpayer. >> the time has expired. the chair recognizes the gentleman -- >> thank you. >> i have a couple of questions. we learned early on there is something in every space, and so this is a question asking just for your opinion, who do you think or what would happen if there is a void left as a result of the united states non- leadership in i.m.f.? >> congressman, i think u.s. leadership in the world is important to the united states and it's important for the world. as i talk with my counter arts in asia and europe, i hear over and over again we need the united states to be the strong lead they're you are. so in the i.m.f. what we see is with our contribution which is less than 20% of the entirety of the i.m.f., we have enormous influence. we have veto over important decisions and the influence that goes with that to help drive decision making to serve u.s. industry and a sounder global commitment i think that's important for the united states and it's important for the world. we are already seeing if the united states in any way steps back, there is a rush to come in and kind of starts to fraction, kind of break apart some of that influence. i don't think we should let that happen. it is too important. >> i think in some ways we are wanting to become isolists in the world and i have problems with expansions, things we do but i am concerned about the imf and our leadership. my other question -- i represent kansas city, missouri, not kansas. that is important. i am just getting the amen from my colleagues. >> i started out working here with somebody who said all politics is local. i get it. >> kansas city used to be the second-largest manufacturer of automobiles in the world behind detroit. i think we are -- in recent times we have been building up again. when i speak with the automobile manufacturers and the workers, the unions, their biggest concern is currency manipulation. i was part of a group that sent a letter to the president asking for currency manipulation discipline in the tpp. is that possible? what is your position on that or what is the administration's position on that? >> we have worked hard on currency issues for a long time. from the moment i stepped in the treasury it is an issue that has been very much on my agenda. if you look at the progress we have made working in the g 20 and the g7, we have gotten the leading economies of the world to agree to principles that reflect our own which is that currencies should be market determined and the tools governments use should be domestic tools for domestic purposes. we have maintained our focus on that in bilateral conversations. we have seen progress in the conversations. any trade agreement that we reach has to be built on the principles that we have worked to reach in places like the g 20. the principles that undergird everything we do. without addressing the specifics of any of the negotiations, there is a core underlying bedrock principle that we are going to be driving for market determined exchange rates. we believe the g 20 is an appropriate place to do that and we have made great progress there. >> thank you for that. it will be difficult for a lot of people to support it. in light of the currency manipulation that is going on with china. as you know, that creates an imbalance in the sale of automobiles. >> i have engaged directly with the chinese on a regular basis on this and we have seen real progress in terms of the exchange rate approaching, not reaching that approaching the point that we are pressing them to get to. i think they understand they have to get to a market determined exchange rate. we try to focus a great detail on progress and where there are still concerns. we have to keep pressing on it and that is what we are doing. >> the time of the gentleman is expired. the chairman recognizes the gentleman from texas five minutes. >> thank you, mr. chairman. i do, secretary for being here. i wrote a letter to the federal insurance office inquiring about free reports that are required by law to be submitted to this committee. one of those reports on insurance moderation is nearly three years overdue. not surprisingly i have not received any response to my letter. do you find it acceptable that these reports have not been submitted to this committee and in some cases are over three years past to do? >> congressman, i know that there is a report that is virtually complete and will be here very shortly. i hope even before you leave for your break. >> mr. secretary, i appreciate that but on a number of occasions that is the same story that i have gotten. we are going to have that shortly. that dialogue began last year. it is not like these are a little bit late. some of these reports are three years late. we -- this administration talks a lot about transparency. you have heard some of my colleagues say we are concerned that it is hard to have transparency when you're not hearing from the administration. >> the report is a very important piece of work. they have virtually completed it. it is in the stages of final production which is why i can say with some confidence that it will be here very shortly. >> is that shortly next year or the year after? >> i am hoping, as i say, before you leave. i am hoping it is days, not weeks. the work they have done is very important. they have brought a knowledge of insurance into treasury at a time when we know that the insurance industry is highly interconnected with other aspects of the financial system. it is a complicated system where we have a lot of respect for state regulation but there are issues of national importance as well. i think this report when it is issued, won't resolve these issues, but will queue up serious discussion. i look forward to engaging with you on those. the report will not be the final word. it is going to be opening the conversation so that we can work together on this. >> actually that segues into my next question. the g 20 leaders' declaration that coming out of the st. petersburg meeting, they look forward to the international association of insurance supervisors further work to develop a comprehensive framework for internationally active insurance groups including capital standards. were you personally consulted about that statement? did you have input into that statement? >> i am aware of it. it is something that was part of the discussions. >> did you support the inclusion of that language in the report? >> i very much support them being part of the international conversation and asking these questions so that as we inquire domestically as to what the right steps to take, we do it in concert with our international partners. the statement doesn't prescribe the end result. it is a process that i think we should be engaged in. >> your model is more bank-like in the way they regulate their insurance industry over there. do you support that same kind of regulatory framework for u.s. domestic companies that have a much different regulatory structure? >> i think that raises some very important and complicated issues. i think that where there is an appropriate need for regulation, we ought to be sensitive to the differences between insurance companies and other financial institutions. i know the regulators have looked at this and they are looking at being flexible as they use the tools they have. if they don't have all the tools they need, it is something we should talk about. to the extent that there is a need for regulation of insurance companies, it ought to reflect the characteristics of insurance companies. >> as this dialogue is going on, there is not a lot of transparency again in this process. the industry, particularly the u.s. the mystic insurance industry, feels like they are being left out of this debate and discussion. i think they are concerned that there is some movement within treasury and others to move to a european model for regulating u.s. insurance companies that many people feel like, when you go back and look at the crisis, the insurance industry fared very favorably. >> the inquiries that have taken place with regard to the financials oversight council have been questions of determining whether there is systemic risk. the question of how to regulate is a totally different question. the standard make the determination on risk. we are very much interested as the regulators follow through that they think this through very carefully and we not jump to a conclusion that says the next insurance companies are exactly the same. >> the time of the gentleman has expired. the chair recognizes the gentleman from illinois for five minutes. >> thank you, mr. chairman. i would like to switch for a moment to the question of the sanctions. first off, congratulations on the recent designation of the initial batch of these. however it seems to me that the rate at which these have been coming out is sort of erratic. six weeks prior to the iranian elections in june, the treasury department issued seven notices of designations of sanction violators that include more than 100 new companies since june 14 when rouhani was elected. the treasury department issued only to designation notices that identified only six people and for companies as violating the sanctions. now we have a new batch. my question is, to what do you attribute this erratic batch by batch nature of the designations? >> congressmen, the work of enforcing sanctions is painstaking work that we have an extra ordinary talented team and treasury working on. there are dedicated, committed to it. they make progress at the pace that they make progress. the designations today reflect the fine work they have done and the determination we have that is true to what i said in my opening remarks. we will continue to investigate for violations of sanctions and take action where we find them. that is important to the sanctions being effective. >> in light of the six-month freeze and negotiating window, many people including myself have a concern that companies will say, oh boy, the sanctions are going to go away in six months and you will see massive cheating on the sanctions. companies are trying to gain a commercial advantage with anticipating the easing of the sanctions. i was wondering, do you feel like you have all the authority you need to make sure that any company that is caught cheating on the sanctions gains no commercial advantage from that? >> enforcement is the answer. i have said in every meeting i have had with ceos since the agreement that there should be no uncertainty. we are continuing to enforce sanctions. no one should think that having iran on financial record is going to go unnoticed. we are going to stay on this. this is not an opening up of any door to relaxing our core financial banking and oil sanctions. i said it in a public speech again last night. i have probably talked to several hundred ceos and deliver the message personally. i don't know how to be more clear than that. it is not like we have some other mechanism other than enforcement. we are very clear that any ceo, any business that steps into a space that violates sanctions is doing it at the risk of having an enforcement action. >> do you anticipate that companies caught cheating on this will have sanctions that extend past the time that normal sanctions would be released? >> the duration of sanctions is something that depending on the violation and the provision. rather than give you an off-the- cuff answer i would rather follow up and do it on a more detailed basis based on which provision you are referring to. >> i would like to change the things that relate to your position on some important issues. one is the application of banking capital standards to insurance companies. i wonder if you have any reaction to the appropriateness of that. >> to be clear, the only actions taken regarding insurance companies were to designate the institutions that met the standard of financial -- presenting that degree of financial risk. the question of how they are regulated is something that each of the regulators will be dealing with. they are looking at how to do this in a way that works. the charge is not to implement. it is to make the determination as to whether or not there is that kind of systemic risk. the tools of each of the regulators will be used as appropriate. as i tried to indicate in my response, we understand that banks and insurance companies are not identical. >> another issue related to this is the issue of collateralized loan obligations and risk retention. clo's were not involved in our financial collapse and the specter of risk retention is something that is -- makes a lot of people uncomfortable. i was wondering if you had a reaction to that. >> in general, the idea that firms should internalize their risks is a very important principle. there are many ways to achieve that. we have tried as we laid out our actions in response to financial reform to make it clear. our firms putting themselves at risk rather than taxpayers at risk for business decisions they are making? capital is part of it. restrictions like the vocal rule are part of it and leverage as well. >> the time of the gentleman has expired. the chair recognizes the gentleman from north carolina for five minutes. >> i request unanimous consent to submit for the record five letters from the leadership of this committee to the treasury secretary and two responses run treasury to those letters. secretary lew, thank you for being here. for the record, article one of the u.s. constitution establishes and makes my dopey oversight and authority of the congress vis-a-vis the executive branch and i am sure you agree with that notion. your treasury department has stiff armed this committee and its oversight capacity in its refusal to provide complete answers to this committee. chairman garrett covered his concern. i sent you a letter in august requesting documents that were the subject of a request made by public interest groups. the treasury post position would provide only redacted documents. this implies that it is applicable to congress. i hope that you would understand that it does not apply to congress. and that you will direct your affairs staff, that they will provide those documents promptly. for the more, on novembe

unanimous vote on it. last year we had a unanimous vote on the defense bill. but there are still matters that we carry to the floor with a full understanding there would be debate is on votes on those -- debates and votes on those. they're not being allowed to vote on those. this is unusual, colleagues. this has never happened in the history of the senate. they've studied and found that in the last 28 years previous to senator reid, the tactic of filling the tree to limit debate was done 40 times. since senator reid has been majority leader, he's done it 77 times. it's every time, really. he is in complete control of the amendment process in the senate. we had a democratic colleague that said, well, he thought that he had to ask -- he had to get approval of the republican leader, senator mcconnell, before he could get his vote up. why? well, senator reid says -- republicans file 20 amendments. senator reid says you can only have three. and so he -- he starts with senator mcconnell. senator mcconnell say, that's not enough, senator reid. well, you can get five.