senator grassley twice offered allowents to specifically a employer contribution. last time on march 24, 2010, put up to a t was vote and was defeated by a vote 43-56. so, it was not like this was something that congress didn't this was that something they didn't understand. this was specifically debated rejected. so, what we are talking about law of that this is the the 4r57land. if this administration don't law of the land, they should come to congress to land.e the law of the they should not change it by presidential decree or fiat.ential that is really what brings me to he second part of the reason i'm bringing this lawsuit is to law.ld the rule of i think that this lawsuit will a very long vide overdue check on presidential expanding presidential power particularly with this administration. seeing it and y people will see over the next hree years a real abuse of executive authority by this preside president. primary is one of the reasons i'm bringing this lawsuit. as it ainly have seen it affects the united states senate with the national labor unconstitutional recess appointments. that was one instance where able to senators were file an amicus brief. one reason to file this lawsuit because in general members of congress don't have or can't to blish legal standing bring a lawsuit. i truly believe this is one of and we will have mr. clement talk about that, in have i believe i do standing and, as a result, i believe i have the obligation to point to overturn this the to try to reestablish check and balance, the careful eers put at our found into the constitution to limit the size and power and scope of government. with that i would like to let legal issues the of the case. >> the lawsuit was filed this divisi n the northern division, the eastern district of wisconsin where senator johnson lives. division sits in into the constitution to limit the size and power and scope of government. with that i would like to green bay. case has been assigned to just william greasback. when congress passed the affordable care act it knew some with including those employer provided coverage would lose it. in uild confidence and to, simple terms, accept for themselves what they were about for millions of others congress decided the only overage that would be made available to members and their staff was that which could be a.c.a. exchange. there is no doubt about that. 1312 d--3 -- d provides only health plan that can be offered to members or their those that may be purchased under an exchange affordable r the care act. for our purposes this afternoon two types of exchanges. one is a small business exchange business se small exchanges a tax-free subsidy can on behalf an employer of individuals who are purchasing on this exchange. affordable care act explicitly defines a small one with fewer than 100 employees. of exchange type really pertinent here are the individual exchanges established under the a.c.a. a.c.a. nor any other provision of the law permits those who are purchasing insurance under those individual exchanges to receive tax-free subsidies. nor does the hrau case hlaw cov employee health benefit program provide for payment of picies subsidies for purchased under these exchanges, fehb f which qualify for funds. got legal matter, congress whether it wanted -- what it wanted. members and their staff are the same dell as millions of -- deal as millions of americans that lost their as a result of a.c.a. and must purchase insurance on the exchanges. was not a mistake. congress knew this with happen. a.c.a. didions of the expressly state that members and their staff could receive tax-free subsidies to purchase health insurance but that language was not included in the .c.a. as it was ultimately passed. after the act was adopted an amendment was proposed which would have permitted the payment tax-free premium federal by the government but as senator johnson pointed out, that was passed. unfortunately, what has happened having chosen to make this solidarity with those who would lose their coverage doesn't now turns out really want to feel their pain. to avoid the ay premiums to pay these would be to change the law. but as senator johnson pointed this ongress has not done and does not appear to want to take a vote on the issue. so, what has happened, as has happened so frequently with the as it is written is being ignored. getted promise you will a rule -- promise you will promiulgated a rule that government with almost three mechanical civilian a small is actually employer for purposes of participation in the small business skhaeupgs and members congress and their staff -- but only members of congress and purchase on - may the individual exchange -- on the small business exchange and receive these tax-free subsidies. no one else who works for someone other than a small employer would be able to do this. this is quite frank ly unlawful. one of manyy, it is examples in which the affordable has been act , ilaterally altered, deferred exemptions grant the or there's been a simple refusal to enforce the law as it has been written. egregious he most example perhaps but it is one that senator johnson is able to about.ething from our perspective this case is not about whether or not congress and their staff should be able to receive contributions ee to their health insurance. it is about the rule of law and of law should le be followed and we are confident that if we are able to make our united states district court for the eastern district of wisconsin that osition will be upheld w. that i will turn it over to mr. clement. >> thank you. i wanted to pick up where rick off. as he indicated, when the affordable care act was passed congress that f the president signed and it included a number of very deadlines, very specific formulas. hat has happened as the implementation deadlines have come to the fore is that the multiple tion on occasions has relaxed the deadlines, changed the rules, this part of the law, that part of the law won't go into ffect on the date congress specified. a lot of people, in looking at branch actions say it is contrary to the law doubt but they would somebody would have standing to bring a challenge to those executive actions. the executive here to essentially eliminate an law congress thought was important namely that members of congress and toir staffs would be subject the same healthcare system with the imitations as constituents, that provision has gh this opm resume likewise been relaxed. what we think makes this think nt and what we gives somebody -- and senator johnson and his staff members in articular -- standing to raise an objection is this doesn't just affect everybody in the is not an abstract concern. this is a provision that senatorally affects how office get their healthcare. it affects how the senator khrfs employees -- classifies within his office for purposes of their eligibility. challenge a classic to a statute that is a that lized grievance affects everyone this is a challenge to the implementation f a statute that is specifically directed to the senate, congress, their offices healthcare.y get so, we think that critically distinguishes cases that are out suggest that many instances legislators do not ave standing to raise objections in court. in particular thing are two things that make this case distinct. is the fact this directly his ts the senate and administers w heedhe the office and how they pay for healthcare. not a generalize d grievance. the second thing that other uishes this from circumstances is that oftentimes you have legislators bring court cases when they haven't been able to prevail in the halls of congress. classic example is the senator who doesn't like the war in vietnam or something and then a court action to challenge the legality of that ction after having lost a vote the war or something like that. this is in a sense is the exact opposite. as both the senator and rick indicated, congress specifically considered the question of whether or not members of congress should get their health the same way as their constituents. decision a conscious vote essentially created parity with their constituencies. so, if healthcare turned out to be a great boon all the boats together.e if it turned out to be a problem then members of congress and suffer affs would through the same problems and would experience those problems be thand and perhaps would best positioned then to address those problems. sense the opm rule -- and this is the heart of the challenge that has been filed that -- interferes with congressional judgment. stops what happened in the halls of congress and effectively relaxes the impact of the decision that congress made to make congress and its staff members directly deal with healthcare me situation as their constituents. so, that, too, really makes this where, unlike past efforts by legislators to hit court and unlike these other instances in which his administration has not implemented the law that congress passed, this is a real case for the s senator and his staff to raise this objection directly in court. so we do think away feel confident there is standing and to having the opportunity to hit gate there there is standing and we look forward to having the opportunity to hit gate there issue in court. we are happy to open up to questions. and naudible] how do you your staff get health insurance and if you are successful what o you think is the most fair way for this situation to be remedied? ould you would to return to [inaudible]? > my wife went on the d.c. exchange and stopped almost immediately because first of all she couldn't get through and did just the, among personal information she had to fully consists she was aware of the lack of any kind of security on the website, she want to go any further so i supported that decision and we went to a broker wisconsin and just purchased healthcare still in the private market. members of my staff also xperienced the same problems and in many cases almost against as they ran up the deadline unable to log into the system, unable to get confirmation and each instance of my staff members their experience with the healthcare different and we will be working with them to make sure they can secure good affordable healthcare. >> can't you or members of your can't lawmakers or members of your against the staff review subsidies, can't they go on the individual exchange and sign up there and not go through the small business one and get the subsidies? >> that is exactly what i would like to do. i think most members are trying to just follow the letter of the law as it has been written and regular litted. i have no criticism just followe law as it has been written and regular litted. i have no criticism of any member of conscious not doing i'm doing in terms of taking advantage of the employer contribution. to do so. chosen not talk about what most americans are going through and congress's ates to situation but most americans are getting healthcare through mployer covered healthcare policies. so, we are talking about a smaller group of americans that trying to -- can you talk about how big that group is comparable that is congress's situation? >> sure. that group is going to grow and grow k it will dramatically. i bought healthcare for the people that work with me at my business for 31 years. the decision now that the healthcare law is in place and exchangeestly once the gets up and running more ffectively, this is going to put greater pressure on to make a pretty simple decision from a business standpoint. now with the health care law the $15,000 per do i pay year for a family plan up $2,500 and reduced which is what president obama promised, pay year and try to comply 20,000 pages to of law or pay the $2,000 or $3,000 and not expose my employees to financial risk, i them eligible for subsidies through the exchange. arguing for een is that there will be all kinds of employers, there will be millions of employees that will lose the employer sponsored care because the incentive is there for the employers to drop the coverage and have them get coverage through the exchanges. we will have a lot of americans, millions of them losing their is that there will be all kinds of employers, there will be millions of employees that will lose the employer sponsored care because the incentive is there for the employers to drop the coverage and have them get coverage through the exchanges. we will have a lot of americans, millions of them losing their tax advantage healthcare coverage get dumped in the exchange, have to secure after tax. now, we can talk about the tax treatment. i always felt it was grossly nfair you got the employer benef benefit. here i would have been pushing that as a reform. if you want to subsidize health care individuals let them enjoy tax advantage and what i want to see is the republican the first of the year. congress alking about singling itself out not relating to what your constituents are it seems by but getting employer sponsored care you are actually getting similar care to what most of your constituents are. right? again, what has -- >> the argument isn't philosophically right or wrong but when you want to mirror your onstituents employer sponsored care. >> i'm talking about millions that are losing healthcare. some lost individual policies people are losing the employer sponsored care and the special treatment is again, wha >> if you lose an ordinary citizen you lose your tax advantage and you with of a-tax e dollars. e are the only class in our staff that when we lost our employer sponsored care because we get a tax advantage employer sponsored contribution. just unfair. that is unjust. it needs to be corrected. > if conditioning were to take on this issue instead of letting the obama administration change hings what is the right outcome? get rid of the subsidy? > if the administration wants to change the law to put members a position back in like this reporter was talking get most americans employer sponsored care, they should come to congress and pass the law to do so. would be certainly one remedy for this. but i do not believe the president has the authority to willy-nilly change the law as he has done with for example he employer plan date which is pretty specific is that there wl be implemented no later than 31, 2013. he just changed the law by decree.ntial that is the point of this lawsuit. the president doesn't have the authority and he needs to be on that.d >> [inaudible]? >> i would like to be in this lawsuit because i do want, as mr. clement was pointing out, it extremely important members of congress have the same experience as the other millions americans that are experiencing to their detriment law.ealth care it is one way to force action. we have been receiving thousands of e-mails and alerts -- and they want to see the healthcare law succeed and are shocked by the increase of and shocked by the fact that president obama's promise and now they oken are seeing their premiums double, triple, out of pocket and triple.ble ccess to the doctors it kept them alive taken away and treatments that kept them alive. so, in order to prompt action halls of congress, to start repairing that damage of this bill, to limit future it is extremely important that members of exact s experience that harsh reality that those exact same pains that the constituents are. that is not going to happen right now because this presid t by ident, because democrats and large went running to him for special treatment and them that and thank is wrong. >> a legal question. i'm not sure who is the best answer this. why is the court filing in wisconsin rather than in d. rfpc. since the d.c. exchange is the the care?ing > for many years in my home state of wisconsin we had a rule that if you wanted to sue the government you had to go to resides, government the capital in madison. e changed that recently in recognition of the fact -- this has been the rule in federal court for a long time -- that are aggrieved by government action should be able their government in court where they reside. e filed this lawsuit in the eastern district of wisconsin because that is where senator johnson lives. is in wisconsin where his constituent constituents, many of whom have lost health and care coverage to get the able tax-free premium subsidies from employer, are feeling that pain. thought it was appropriate for us to file the lawsuit in johnson's home state. > back on the employer sponsored coverage one thing a lot of businesses are talking bout doing planning to drop coverage or dropping coverage is provided their employees with compensation it buy insurance on their own. would you consider that as a olution to this issue to help your staff? it wouldn't be tax free, it .ould be taxed >> on a case-by-case basis that i will be considering per staff member. frugal so as ally i -- for the three years i have every year i ss underspent my budget by a half becausedollars not only i'm frugal but a i knew this was coming. going to be as result. what is bizarre is coming from where, when iector hire somebody to work with me, i not only have to pay their to budget for ve their pension plans and unemployment insurance and their insurance.e i understand those full costs. a n you come here it is bizarre system. a member of congress's budget is to pay salary. somebody else, the secretary of the senate provides the benefits congress don't know the cost, which is part of the problem. if this ruling were overturned it would force congress to start considering and understanding how expensive these benefits are. i have allowed myself the flexibility, retained enough those to be able to make types of adjustments so that i an help individuals work their way through that so they can continue to afford to remain office. in my >> you mentioned that you are frugal and you felt like this obligation you wanted to -- how much is this cost and who particularly it the retaining of mr. clement? senate ve had to go to ethics. i had to options. und it personally which i was willing to do but the senate ethics committee did allow me to do it through my campaign committee. so that is another way i can fund but the senate ethics committee did allow me to do it through my campaign committee. so that is another way i can fund this. so i can do a combination or all the other.ll of i hope to be able to quite my stly raise funds through campaign committee. some wouldn't do that. you have campaign finance those contributions and can be pretty precious dollars. ut this is such an important more than i think i'm willing to either fund it utilize those limited campaign funds. that is how it will be funded. critics, iyou say to utilizeu have a fellow congressman, member of congress james sconsin sensenbrenner who said there is a political stunt and it will serve as a distraction away from what is really wrong with obama we will he said that focus on a trivial issue. he is a republican. what would you say to critics him? >> first of all i have a great eal of respect for congressman sensenbrenner. i'm disappoint and puzzled by his action. issue that i believe republicans publicly because record voting for the treatment i think only two members of congress this was to us ever republican except two in both chambers voted to support of what i'm trying to do in this lawsuit. way, shape orn any form believe this is trivial or a stunt., that this is i think this is a very important constitutional question. i think it is a very important issue that deserves a full airing. it deserves its day in court and public discussion and debate. that is why i'm doing that. disagree with the congressman or anybody else that has hard feelings about it. do you expect to see my more action supporting this? >> was hoping for a legislative fix. i was co-sponsor of an amendment the fact they e were trying to add members of the administration, political appointees, make sure the entire political class has the same experience, good or bad, that public do.n so, i support that amendment. senator reid refuses to allow even a vote on that. i certainly supported what the when they attached basically the vitter amendment one of those continuing resolutions and i think everybody republican voted for except two and when harry reid put it up for a every table it republican senator voted against tabling it. so, one reason i held off filing there would beif legislative action. i thought maybe in the budget conference committee that might be something we might have extracted as one of our wins in that didn't happen. it doesn't look like this will legislatively. asking that this will be set aside. [inaudible] rule part of the rule also clarifies of congress members and their staff would not have to go on the exchanges. >> that is not an issue i really considered. don't believe that is part of the law, is it? >> no. >> we are talking about current members. >> some of the things you said and a couple of items here in mentioned , you have or implied members of congress should have to get their exchang e through the exchanges. but looking at the actual wording in the affordable care coverage s the only that can be offered by the federal government is through the exchanges. re you saying they have to get their coverage through the exchanges or -- the law really states the only thing james canenbrenner who the federal tt [inaudible] fer is i'm not defending the law. repeal the law. i think it is causing all kinds of harm to all kinds of americans. don't want to defend how poorly it was written but it was written in a way and i think it s clear this lawsuit is about enforcing that law and enforcing president that really feels unrestrained by his faithfully execute those laws. > do you think the law doesn't deal with that at all? >> i have chosen that option myself. >> to follow up on that, if i right that means effectively you have declined this subsidy by going to the private market. correct. >> i wonder if you knew how many lawmakers had done that. my other question was, it is not clear how you are handling it with your staff. something about case by case. how is that working? >> first of all i do not know ow many other people have declined it and i'm not in any way shape or form critical of trying it is just follow the law, follow the rules as they are currently written with it or agree not. most republicans utterly. but we are trying to follow it. so, i was forced as part of the tonding issues, i was forced take action that i believe is unlawful.is that is part of the issue. in terms of how my staff is it, they, i believe -- they believe that they all did coverage and again it is a wide spectrum in terms of what they did. decided not to take employer coverage and got on we go coverage and as back to salary reviews we will talk to those individuals on an basis in terms of what is it costing you, what kind of harm was done? et's look at your raw pay package. so don't have any blanket rule. flexible. very --some did take the employer >> i imagine all of my staff members most people here in did take the taff employer contribution. i'm not being critical of that. being critical of a no legal who knows bounds and is doing things by presidential decree. >> [inaudible] staff because of this? >> no. know that is one of the canards is this will be a huge we will lose d senior staff. i think that is up to members of is ress if somebody disgruntled or one of the first terms i learned when i came here no legal bounds and is doing things by presidential decree. totally oud in any kind of elective office, first term i heard interviewing potential staff members was cashing out. not like this was a new phenomenon. he fact is it is a constant issue with members of congress and their staff in terms of how do you retain good people. a lot of good people here. that is just an issue people will have to deal on a case-by-case basis with individuals. do we have time for one more? thank you for coming. i appreciate it. [captioning performed by national captioning institute] [captions copyright national cable satellite corp. 2014] president obama's topic advisor is urging congress to benefits for ent three months. he told white house reporters the bipartisan bill in the would give lawmakers more time to develop long-term this.on to the problem is a half hour. >> thank you. thanks, jay. is no question we go into 2014 with more economic momen m momentum. the unemployment rate is down to 7%. private ad 2.3 million sector jobs the last year and we -- seen housing up about housing prices up about 13%. but there's also no question need to ensure the economy has more momentum and that we are having a recovery one behind.no is erms of job growth there no question there are opportunities for us to move the ball forward as a country. has put forward a grand bargain on jobs, a at osal that he announced chattanooga that would combine usiness tax reform and lower rates, have a minimum tax with initiative.cture we are working on bipartisan finance on on housing reform, on immigration and manufacturing. also no question that we have to make sure that this does leave no one behind. what is s addressing clearly perhaps the worst legacy great recession, which is the crisis of long-term nemployment that we still face in our country. while we have seen the come down, rate generally and particularly for those who are short-term who are d, those long-term unemployed continue to ace a very difficult liberal mark market. who stay w that those out of the liberal force too serious n suffer economic and psychological a country have to be committed to doing help those e can to who are long-term unemployed find new jobs to support their families, get them back on their feet. that is going to take an attack all fronts on long-term unemployment. one, doing more to more momentum ry so there are more jobs so it is onethree people looking for job open but has many more jobs created. in partnershiprk with c.e.o.'s in our country to ake sure we are all working in partnership to give those who are long-term unemployed the opportunities possible to a chance at a et new job. we have been working together in a partnership with many of our the ry's top c.e.o.'s and president will, in the coming weeks, have more to say on that. the ly, we have to give basic support for those who are out there, who have worked in and are out there every ay working hard to find a new job. we as a country, we are a that has each other's back in hard times. , have all -- we have never over the last half century, cut unemployment benefits when long-term barely ment was even over half the rate that we have now.t now is not the time to start. what you today is. oday is the day that 1.3 million americans start going to their mailbox and find that the expected to get today is not there. that is a temporary life line for families who are employment, a m check that puts food on their gas in d perhaps the their car they need to drive to interview for a new job. day.y is the today and tomorrow is the day empty and x will be those families will find it -- hardship in covering necessities. over 2014, over the whole year, with be 4.9 million eople who would find their emergency unemployment benefits cut off at some point. an e 4.9 million support additional nine million. so this would affect 14 million the course of 2014. and tomorrow ay are the days that the 1.3 find n americans will their temporary life line not in is also thex, today day we have a chance to do something about it. piece of bipartisan legislation supported by jack reed andator republican senator heller from we should says extend emergency unemployment right now.onths this will obviously give us more time to figure out what is the deal with a longer solution for 2014. act right now to help those 1.3 million people. fact, in these three months that number would grow to 2 million america americans. talked to senator heller on frid friday, and he said, you know, r him this was not idea was talking to constituents every day that were often in economic stress who desperately wanted a job and a erstanding that we are other's hat has each back in these difficult times. i want to say just two points questions that are important to recognize. number one, you are only emergency r unemployment benefits if you are actively looking for work. actually help encourage people to stay in the workforce because et discouraged they have to be actively looking for work to be eligible for the benefits. this is a popular word among those who cover the fed, employment y difficulties are designed to taper off as unemployment goes down. example, when you talk about the fact that we have 46 weeks, that is only for a state that has over 9% unemployment. your unemployment goes benea weeks 9% there are 10 less available. under 7% unprompt there is nine available. under 6% there's an additional 14 more weeksen available. this is not designed to go on forever. temporary life line in difficult times that our country has relied on for well over a , and the president feels very strongly that this the support both democratic and republican senators senators, bipartisan proposal to extend for three months and we this should. this deserves to pass. you know republics want this offset $6.5 billion for the months. is the administration open to $6.5 iating an offset of million for the three months and sing that to offset the much larger cost over a full calendar year? an urgent just situation right now. we have, as i said, today is the people have been cut off, but today is the day they find the check not there. president believes that we withd pass this right away no strings attached. that is more in line with precedent than anything else. 14 of the last 17 times in 20 ears that it has been extended there have been no with strings attached. times that the previous president bush extended mergency unemployment benefits there was no pay for strings attached and the unemployment those s lower each of five times than today. compromise that the that is inherent in the he heller-reed bipartisan egislation is let's move quickly and pass this three-month extension now. his will help americans immediately and this will give us more time to have a larger about what happens after the three months are over. you willing to offset a calendar year if not the three months? offsetting sed to under every circumstance? >> what i said is let's move anckly now because we are in urgent situation. we didn't get it posted in december. the step now, we will -- that will leave more time to discussion about you est to do it over, know, for the remainder of 2014. >> you wouldn't rule it out? on our focus right now is the legislation that is up there. it is the only bipartisan plan been there. there's been talk but there is that is tisan plan and to stand three months on an emergency level. want people to support with the understanding there will be time to discuss tdo when this three months is over. the white clarify, is house opposed to negotiating adjust soffset. i know you want short term do it now but do republicans draw a ine they are saying right now they at the present time offset. is that something the white house won't even negotiate on? >> our focus right now, john, is to get this passed. i want to point out, as i have said, this is the day -- been cut e already off. whole are right now, today, ay be got as little as $150 a week, or maybe an average of this was their life line, their basic support. have the first bipartisan proposal, when it with be passed right now no strings attached, when that s consistent with the overwhelming precedent before, the clear right thing for us to this ht now is pass measure now in its current form nd again it is just for three months because more time to have those -- you know, further discussions about what else you might do to extend it after that. april. gene, what do you say to republicans who are not necessarily worried about the not that some people are getting their insurance benef s insuranceunemployment benefits today, they are worried about the fact that things are we are out of and recession and it saves money not benefits.the what do you say to those republicans? extending the , is the right thing to do based on our economic values. neighbors, fellow parents struggling to get by. it is also the common sense thing to do economically. that been estimated extended nt insurance in 2014 would mean an additional and additional fifth of a percent of growth. people have estimated that for you put in the pocket of somebody in this situation, ittress leads to a multiplier of $1.50 in the economy. so it is smart economically. just the right thing to do. what i would say is the reason mental unemployment enefits like -- emergency unemployment benefits over democratic and republican presidents is we understand that when unemployment is at a low level one can assume that able to le should be find work in some way. unemployment benefits to 26 weeks. ut when you have nine states that are over 8% unemployment, hen you have rhode island and nevada at 9% unemployment, when of have historic levels long-term unemployment, you tphknow just millions of people still who are desperately work.g for they are eligible because they were working before. they are looking for a job. this is not their fault. they are not the ones who were packaging subprime securities. they didn't ask to have a grave recession. hey didn't ask to have to struggle with some of the hard log sis. legacies.y is that -- we are pleased that the economy has more momentum. pleased to see unemployment coming down and coming up.tor jobs but again, we work for a president who wants a stronger wants recovery that leaves no one behind. we can be an administration that just comes in herein and tells you -- comes in here and tells that happened ws or the improvement. ut that is not what we are about. we are about helping people who are hard working, responsible nd want to get back on their feet. that is why we're willing to point out that even amidst the we have economic news seen and stronger economic toentum there is a challenge long-term employment and we care about those people and we are going to do everything we can to help them. >> have you personally talked o some of the republicans to change their mindset has i it relates to the extension of benefits?ent >> i would say many of us have been in contact with many people. reveal want to conversations. i have been in conversations heller and his chief of staff. that we are e sure actively working this. [inaudible]? >> i don't know. i'm not here to predict. you that it ell should pass. think that -- i really think there were a lot of very moving stories that i'm sure a lot of here and around the country were responsible for. important they were because they didn't just go did.gh the numbers i they told the stories of real people and told stories of compelling stories. stories of -- they put the names and faces of people that clearly are people that are responsible, a d working, have fallen on tough situation for no fault of their own and are trying to get feet again.r that is who we're here to help. you open or is the white house open to further tapering he unemployment insurance progr program? you know, there is talk of phasing it reform, out. >> i think i put that in the , put forward, id which is we have an urgent 1.3 ation on our hands with million americans finding their benefits cut off. bipartisan three months plan passed and that will a e us more time to have broader discussion and more in-depth conversation about how forward after that. can you talk, either you or jay, about what the president has personally been doing since back to get this passed, any calls with anybody and talk about what the event tomorrow is supposed to do vis-a-vis the vote that may or may not happen tonight? president has he been active and he has made calls. but again we -- we don't have after that say because we are doing what we can. sometimes that is more helpful with private conversations. >> could this be avoided if the fought hard are on the ryan murray budget plan machiplan that was passed last month? i went back and looked at our efforts and i found that the president of the united states called for extending emergency unemployment seven times in 18 days. times in 18 days. we put out -- i think i called never 14.st on again on november 17 fp. a report air put out and the president did a weekly address. 14. -- a ed it in his weekly address entirely on this issue. he included it on his statement on the agreement on ryan murray. it was a significant part of his speech on inequality. o i think the president and administration made very clear this portant we thought was to get done. we are not of the belief that to only way we should able work together is for somebody to threaten a shutdown. weekly address very, very clear that this ought to get done and ways for it to get done and the most clear and is for the united states senate it start by passing a bipartisan heller-reed legislation on the floor tonight. if you are afraid of a shutdown and you talk about you still would have had a couple of days to get a budget deal passed before the line.f that time >> the president called for it seven times in 18 days. called as, just as many of us were leaving, reed and heller forward. proposal the president, from his vacation, called both senators and asked how he could help. the administration has been out there continually. we you may have noted that don't always have 100% control over the united states congress. the record is pretty clear that the president and his secretary of d labor have aggressively been ushing for this both in december, both in the break, and as quickly as possible as we returned. >> gene, thank you very much. >> thank you. is this the last time that we are going to hear from you in this role or this administration from this podium? is there any sort of thought that you want my to share? >> i don't know when jay is asking me back. i will probably be here for -- i january here for all of quite a lot of february as well. jeff and i were talking yesterday and i'm quite when march comes i will be somewhere else. >> a lot of stories this weekend the 50th on anniversary of the war on poverty. you saw the clinton bush years on and and now the obama years. have policies, i think, been building a long time, poverty. the problem of but you were talking a moment ago about historic levels of long-term unemployment. in poverty.till how much responsibility does the -- bear after being in office five years for some of has policies to take hold? broader question i think the war on poverty that lyndon johnson declared 50 years ago wednesday has made very important advances. there is no question. 19 1963, 51% of broader question i think the war on african-americ poverty and 25% had graduated from high school. i think one of the things that you heard us talk about and i hink that you will see our counsel of economic advisors bureau of more is the labor statistics has now started looking at a broader measure of to make sure we are looking at all the things that effect how people are doing the earned income tax credit, food stamps. when you look at that measure find that poverty poverty and , perhaps close to 40% 35% to 40% since then. important been progress. i think that it is important to understand that many of the over that have been done the last 20 years have mattered. when i came in to in hen i was first here anyone 93 there were probably about 1.7 million americans that were above the poverty line because of the earned income tax credit. measures that have been condition over the ast 20 years -- because of measures that have been done the last 20 years including extending the earned income tax credit for or more th they children and there are six million people out of poverty. the refundable tax credit and child tax credit and i.t.c. it may be as many as nine million not being in poverty. when you look over this i think there u -- i think that is no question over the last 50 years things have been done we have learned some but i think we have learned lessons. both democrats and republicans you have to see what incentives you are creating and policies better if they are designed to reward work. earned income tax credit has been so important is that it is an incentive for work. get that assistance as you are working that has positive positives and is given support for the program. an example, back to 1993, when you look at the thernative poverty measure, broader poverty measure, the overty rate was actually lower 2011, than it was in 1993. here, first time in office a year or two after a very mild ecession, poverty was higher than it was after the worse great n since the depression. so, we should be judging and different all the things that we are doing. we should be willing to reform. but i think that there are this president has done have made big difference. it is estimated as many as eight not in poverty because of things done in the recovery act. the fact we have been in budget everybody is le focused on what is going to happen with the middle class tax relief the president has made a priority to fight for extending the earned income tax credit and part of the american opportunity tax credit, child tax credit, has shown his commitment, no politics in that, not even much attention, just in they aother thing is very smart professor, professor dubay just came out you a report that many of saw the last few days that said if we were to raise the minimum $10.10 the way it is that would lift 6.8 out of poverty and make them less dependent on government programs and would not add to the deficit one penny but it would reward work and reduce poverty. those are some of the things that you are going out of pover to hear from this president now and in the state of the union and those are we're going to fight to get done. somehowdy suggests that we want to fight for the minimum wage or extending emergency for political it being opposed to the right thing to do, i have a big solution. in's get them done right now a bipartisan way and everybody can share credit in doing something that is the right american people. thank you very much. [captions copyright national cable satellite corp. 2014] [captioning performed by national captioning institute] senate originally scheduled a vote on the bill unemployment insurance but it was postponed until tomorrow morning to accommodate enators that were not able to return to washington monday evening. our series first ladies moments with few exclusive interviews with former rosaline cart and betty ford. a little less than an hour and a half a discussion of what has days ed during the first of insurance coverage under the affordable care act. then officials from the senators for medicare and medicaid services say the affordable care has had minimal impact on the recent slow down in spending. s part of our series first ladies we spoke with former carter in ansaline exclusive interview. he talked about attending cabinet meetings, working on mental health issues, the what n hostage crisis and she hopes her legacy will be. she talks about her continuing president jimmy carter on a variety of issues. an is a little less than hour. >> rosalynn carter, do you remember when president carter started having conversations about him running for president? >> i do. >> what was that like? what was that conversation? >> it was very interesting. we had a friend that wrote and told jimmy he thought he should run for president. well, we couldn't even say the word, that my husband was running for -- we did not tell anybody. because we kept it quiet. but then once he decided he would do it, that was when -- he could hardly say "i am going to be president." it was not something we never, ever dreamed would happen. but i was excited about it. i had campaigned the whole last year before the governor's race for him.

Related Keywords

Vietnam , Republic Of , United States , Nevada , Iran , Rhode Island , Green Bay , Wisconsin , Washington , District Of Columbia , Americans , Iranian , American , Harry Reid , Jack Reed , Jimmy Carter , Rosalynn Carter , Lyndon Johnson , James Sensenbrenner , Ryan Murray , Betty Ford ,