speaker pro tempore on this day. signed, john a. boehner, speaker of the house of representatives. the speaker pro tempore: pursuant to the order of the house of january 3, 2013, the chair will now recognize members from lists submitted by the majority and minority leaders for morning hour debate. the chair will alternate recognition between the parties with each party limited to one hour and each member other than the majority and minority leaders and the minority whip imited to five minutes, but in no event shall debate continue beyond 11:50 a.m. the chair recognizes the gentleman from oregon, mr. lumenauer, for five minutes. mr. blumenauer: thank you, mr. speaker. since 2006 when i introduced the legislation that game the iraqi special immigrant visa, i've been haunted by the prospect of the brave iraqi and afghan nationals that risked their lives to help american efforts in these troubled countries that they themselves would be victims because of their trust in us. as my friend, kirk johnson, eloquently stated in his book "to be a friend is fatal: the fight to save iraqis america left behind." for seven years it's been a battle to have the united states honor its obligations to those who put their trust in us when they helped us. as the united states has withdrawn from iraq and is winding down in afghanistan, people with very long memories are searching out, hunting down and killing people they regarded as traitors because they helped american as interpreters, as guides, as drivers. we have seen some bright spots. one was where the program we fought so hard to establish was going to expire september 30 at the height of the government shutdown. in a reaffirmation of our ability to get something important done, we were able on a bipartisan basis to secure unanimous consent to keep the special immigrant visa program alive at least through the end of the year so we can work the problems out. another bright spot for me was being able to be at national airport a couple weeks ago late at night watching janice, the afghan interpreter who saved the life of captain matt keller, walk out of that causeway with his young wife and two children. it was a story book effort of the will of captain keller whose life janice saved in a firefight who wouldn't give up after five years. at times we didn't think it was possible, but after false starts and grave danger to the mily, they are now safe in america. an illustration of what can happen with effort and candidly a little media attention, but now we're watching the state department drag its feet on visas for afghans who risk our lives, creating impossible burdens for them to establish whether or not they are actually at risk. recent news accounts make it clear that there's a committee at the u.s. embassy in kabul that's placing inordinant roadblocks for people we know are at risk, some of whom have already been hunted down and killed. we failed to establish a process that works for them. we've only approved a trickle of the special immigrant visas out of the almost 9,000 that were authorized. it's unnecessary, it's shameful and it's dangerous to long-term american interests. who's going to trust us in the future if we need their help? i was able to congratulate secretary kerry a few weeks ago for the state department's rapid action to save the life of janice, but every one of these thousands of cases should not require congressional intervention, extraordinary news coverage and a major five-year commitment from people like captain matt keller. there's no excuse to not make the s.i.d. program work. innocent lives are at stake, american honor is on the line and our future actions will be compromised. i would urge my colleagues to attend a session we're having next week to meet kirk johnson who's dedicated his life for years to help these desperate people and for america to restore its honor. join us next week in room 2168 in rayburn on wednesday for a special screening and discussion of the documentary "the list." it is our duty now to save those who risk so much to help us when we needed them. they must not be left behind to the tender mercies of the aliban and al qaeda. the speaker pro tempore: the gentleman's time has expired. the chair recognizes the gentleman from texas, mr. poe, for five minutes. mr. poe: mr. speaker, the health of the nation is now in the hands of government. let's see how it's working out for people who work for a living. many americans are feeling the pain of government health care, and here's what some of them have sent me from my congressional district in texas. billy from spring, texas, writes, i can't afford what obamacare will cost. how can they say it's better? my company pays part of my insurance and the insurance is good. why do i have to change to something i cannot afford? it doesn't make any sense. my doctor told me a lot of them will retire rather than deal with this horrible health care law. the quality of doctors will diminish. i thought the government was for the people. well, billy, apparently the government is for the government and not for the people. james from humble, texas, says, defund obamacare. my employer has already informed us our health care will be changing and this comes at a very bad time for my family. we will be forced into exchanges and the employer informs us that the company has the right to end subsidize retiree health care in the future. higher costs, higher deductibles and total confusion. this will have a negative impact on our economic future as we enter our retirement years. small business owner terrence wolf from humble, says, defund obamacare before we collapse our entire economy. we cannot afford it as a nation it as a not afford small business owner. i cover 80% of the premium for all 10 of my employees. all of us are bracing for at increase.% to 40% shannon wrote from humble, texas, says, i cannot believe obamacare is still a reality. the government has no business managing health care insurance. furthermore, they don't have a right to tell americans if they can or cannot have a procedure performed once the insurance is forced on insurance. forcing people to pay a fine if they choose not to have health care is asinine and the furthest thing from democracy. unfortunately, mr. speaker, shannon is wrong about it being a fine. it's not a criminal penalty. it's a tax. if it were a fine, you could have due process, your day in court, your jury trial. but under a tax you have to pay the tax first and then fight the i.r.s. to try to get it back. sharon from spring, texas, says, now what, we may get the delay in obamacare mandate. after all, because of the cluster it's turned out to be. but what about those of us who have insurance through our employers? my goal level of insurance -- gold level of insurance no longer allows me to participate in the flex spending account. i ultimately had to go to a lower plan because it was cost prohibited. my deductible is higher and now my co-pays are higher. i will be paying at least $2,000 to $3,000 more per year on top of the $7,200 i already pay. we were told it's because of obamacare. america. big dupe to obama wanted things to be more fair. sure, we have insurance now but no one can afford to go to the doctor. well said, sharon. robert around from humble, texas, says this, it is incomprehensible. we put men on the moon but we can't get into a $400 million website to purchase insurance. yes, mr. speaker, those glitches seem to be a real problem. earl benny from kingwood, says, when i look at what is available on o.b. care, the plan that is closest to ours is going to cost $745 a month. this is absurd. it does not look we will be able to keep our current policy, so we are being forced to pay $400 per month for coverage and the deductible is $12,000. i really like my current plan and the premium fits our budget. what can be done? mr. speaker, this is bad news for the middle class. and marian porter from houston, texas, i'm the sole breadwinner for a family of five. i'm eligible for affordable insurance through my employer. however, my family coverage is prohibit tiffly expensive. $18,000 a year. or more, 30% of my take home pay. if only affordable to us food, shelter and clothing were a luxury and not a necessity. mr. speaker, marian should not have to choose between feeding her family and being forced into obamacare. why has the government done this to the people? as billy said it best, i for t the government was the people. well, apparently not, and that's just the way it is. i yield back. the speaker pro tempore: the gentleman yields back. the chair recognizes the gentlewoman from alabama. ms. sewell: thank you, mr. speaker. i want to talk about a community leader, pastor man, tom served as chief executive officer of the montgomery community action committee for the past 39 years. for his dedicated service to the city of montgomery and the state of alabama, i pay tribute today to the life work of tom gardner iii. tom was born to reverend tom gardner jr. and ms. effie gardner on january 22, 1946 in alabama. tom served his country in the united states army in vietnam from 1966 to 1968. as a result of his exemplary service and sacrifice, he received the purple heart in 1967 and the bronze star in 1968. tom received a bachelor's of science degree from alabama state university and a masters of public administration from troy state university. tom is married to mrs.ess tell gardner and is a loving -- mrs. estelle gardner and is a loving father to two and grandfather to three grandchildren. in addition to his strong commitment to family, tom has demonstrated an enduring dedication to faith and god, continuing on the pastorial legacy of his father, he is part of the baptist church in is hometown of hopehall, alabama. he has oversight of federal, state and local grants. he administered the emergency shelter grant homeless assistance program, the community housing development organization, the housing counseling agency and the affordable housing development program. tom has demonstrated an exemplary commitment to community service throughout his life by his numerous participation in community organizations. tom has dedicated the past 39 years of his career to the montgomery community action agency. he began his career at the montgomery community action agency in 1974 as director of peshell and served as the equal -- personnel and served as the equal opportunity officer until 1975. he was promoted to being the chief executive officer of the montgomery community action agency in 1975 where he served until his retirement in october of 2013. on a personal note, i know tom gardner as my beloved uncle sonny and my mother's youngest brother. i am blessed to have grown up with his wife -- with his guidance. uncle sonny as served as the patriarch of the gardner family. there is not a problem, no challenge nor concern that my cousins and i have not sought his wisdom and comfort. i am so proud of his 39-year career heading the montgomery community action agency, and i'm equally prideful of my uncle sonny's continued dedication to the well-being and spiritual health of our family. thank you, uncle sonny. on behalf of the seventh congressional district, the state of alabama and this nation, i ask my colleagues to join me in celebrating the career and retirement of tom gardner iii. his life is a testament to his strong work ethic and passion for faith, family and community. the speaker pro tempore: the gentlelady yields back. the chair recognizes the gentleman from alabama, mr. rooks, for five minutes. mr. brooks: mr. speaker, in a bold and agile display of legal ese the united states supreme court justice, john roberts, upheld the affordable care act by declaring a tax while failing to address whether the tax complied with the origination clause of our constitution. the case ofciesle vs. the united states department of health and human services is pending before the d.c. court of appeals and headed to the supreme court. cissel challenges the constitutionality of roughly 20 tax increases that fund government-run health care. constitution, article 1, section 7, is the origination clause, it states, in part, that, quote, all bills for raising revenue shall originate in the house. end quote. i have joined 40 members of congress in a friend of the court brief filed this week that urges the court of appeals to obey the constitution and declare the affordable care act taxes unconstitutional because they violate the origination clause. on october 8, 2009, the house of representatives passed h.r. 3590, the service members homeownership tax act, a six-page bill. h.r. 3590 raised no taxes or revenue of any kind. to the contrary, h.r. 3590 cut taxes for veterans buying homes of the the senate took h.r. 3590, deleted its substantive provisions, and substituted a six-page bill with a 2,074-page bill. commonly referred to as obamacare, that raised roughly $50 billional year in new taxes, making it one of the largest tax increases in the history of america. none of these obamacare tax increases were in the original house bill. hence, all of these new tax increases originated in the senate not the house, thereby violating the origination clause requirement that tax increases originate in the house. the origination clause was subject to significant debate during america's 1787 constitutional convention. massachusetts convention delegate and america's fifth vice president, gary, stated, the origination clause, was quote, the cornerstone of the accommodation, end quote, of the great compromise of 1787 that persuaded a majority of the states to ratify the constitution. stated differently, but for the origination clause there would have been no constitution and no united states as we know it. the origination clause was that important. virginia delegate and co-author of our bill of rights, george mason, explained opposition to senate tax originations when he declared, quote, the senate did not represent the people but the states and their political care. it was important, therefore, it should tax the people. again, the senate is not like the house of representatives chosen frequently and obliged to return frequently among the people. they are chosen by the states for six years, will probably settle themselves at the seat of government, will pursue schemes for their agran diesment, and taking advantage of their impatience at the close of a long session to extort measures for that purpose, end quote. mr. speaker, america's founding fathers did not trust the senate to originate and raise taxes because senators sat unchallenged for six years, greater part of a decade, and too insulated and unaccountable for the taxes they forced on american citizens. mr. speaker, no american court in history has ever held -- upheld the constitutionality of taxes upped the circumstances presented by obamacare. doing so now would undermine and nullify the letter and spirit of the origination clause in a constitution that has served america so well for so long. mr. speaker, every federal judge and justice took an oath to defend, protect, and uphold our constitution. if these judges will put their partisanship and egos aside, if these judges will apply the constitution as it is written and intended, if these judges will simply honor their oath of office, then obamacare will be declared unconstitutional because it violates the origination clause and america's dangerous and failing experiment with socialized medicine will have ended. obamacare will be dead and quality health care for americans will survive. mr. speaker, i yield back. the speaker pro tempore: the gentleman yields back. the chair recognizes the gentleman from massachusetts, mr. mcgovern. mr. mcgovern: i ask unanimous consent to address the house. the speaker pro tempore: for five minutes. without objection, so ordered. mr. mcgovern: mr. speaker, last wednesday i had the privilege of joining monty belmonty, who is a wrsi in north hampton, mass marks on a 26-mile walk to raise awareness about the issue of hunger and to raise money for the western massachusetts food bank. it was an incredible experience. my legs are sore, but it was inspiring to be part of that march. for the entire 26 miles we were joined by a diverse group of people, people like bill stapleton, who is the president of the north hampton cooperative bank, andrew moore house, the director of the western massachusetts food bank. we were joined by dan finn of pioneer valley local first, and a fell named sean barry who runs four season liquor store in hadley. and along the way various people joined us for part of the march. we met with school groups along the way. we even marched along with a group called mutton and immediate -- meade. as we marched, people would stop their cars to offer their support and offer some money. but they would also tell us stories about people they knew who were hungry in our community. young kids in schools, some of whom march with us, told us stories about how they had seen first hand hunger. some raised money to support the march. and we also stopped at a place called the amherst survival center. it's a food pantry, a place where a lot of low-income people get clothes, sometimes medical advice, sometimes counseling. there, the ed director handed me a bunch of plates, paper plates, where people who go to the amherst survival center and some people who work there wanted to send a message to me and congress. i want to read some of these plates. this one says try going hungry, hunger hurts. the panry provides. this one is read the news about snap, and i'm afraid my family will go to bed hungry. how is this possible? another person wrote, i think everyone has a right to healthy food, which is why the pantry is so important. linda wrote, dear congress, please help us who need the help. i didn't think i would ever be like this. this person wrote, no snap, no food. this person wrote, i work and i'm seeking more work. my husband works. it is not enough. dear congress, access to affordable food is a basic human right, signed by shelly. what's for dinner? nothing without the pantry. wrote emily. working in the pantry has opened my eyes to see all the wonderful people struggling in the community. dear congress, we need your help, blessings. food stamps help american agriculture. hunger and homelessness in america, question mark. i could go on and on and read -- the reason why i'm doing this we are so inundated with facts and figures and statistics, somehow feel t our ability to them. these are real people. these are real people who are struggling. real people who are working with struggling families. they deserve a voice. and one of the things that people are concerned about is congress making their lives worse. considering the farm bill and in the house version of the farm bill there is a $40 billion cut in snap. 3.8 million people would lose their benefits. hundreds of thousands of kids would no longer have access to free breakfast and lunch at school. 170,000 veterans would lose their benefits. mr. speaker, we can do so much better. one of the things we are here for are to help the people like those who go to the ambers survival center. one of the things that we are here for is to respond to the concerns that we heard along the way as we -- as i marched with monty belmonty and his crew. it's nice that this march was a success and they raised a lot of money for the western massachusetts food bank. it's not enough. these food banks are at capacity. surely in the richest country in the history of the world, we can do better. we can end hunger. mr. speaker, i would urge all my colleagues as we start to consider the farm bill, please do not support a farm bill that makes more people hungry. let's do the right thing. this is a problem that we can solve. and again i want to thank monty belmonty and all the people at wrsi in north hampton for their compassion, for their activism, helping people in need. we need to be inspired by people like those who marched with me from north hampton to greenfield. we need to do the right thing. with that, mr. speaker, i thank you for the time. i yield back the balance of my time. the speaker pro tempore: the gentleman yields back. the chair recognizes the gentlewoman from alabama, mrs. roby, for five minutes. mr. speaker, i rise today to share some of the stories of alabamans who are being negatively affected by the implementation of the affordable care act. over the last several weeks thousands of health insurance policyholders in alabama have received notice that their plans have been canceled or altered and their costs have risen, some quite dramatically. this despite president obama's often repeated and unmistakable promise to the contrary. he he promised the affordable care act, quote, if you like your doctor you will be able to coop your doctor, period. if you like your health care plan, you will be able to keep your health care plan, period. no one will take it away, no matter what. mr. speaker, we now know this wasn't true. to make matters worse, the disastrous rollout of the obamacare website has made it nearly impossible for those affected to search for alternatives. the president didn't tell the truth and the americans who took him at his word are paying the price. i recently reached out to alabamans asking those who have experienced health care plan cancellations or rate increases because of obamacare to tell me their stories. the response has been overwhelming and, mr. speaker, i would like to share just a few of those stories here in the house this morning. allison strickland, a wife and homeschooling mother of four writes, we are a family of six with one income, and our preums doubled from $420 to $940 a month. we are already under great financial strain, and this is not helping relieve any of the tension. at this point, we are unsure about what we are going to do. with four growing children we know insurance is vital, but at what cost to the daily needs of our family? we are very disappointed in the obama administration. sean cunningham of montgomery writes i am a married father of two beautiful little girls. my jaw dropped when i found out my family's premium was going from $400 a month to $722. i called blue cross first thing monday morning, but i was told i -- ed to contact hofert health-care.gov. i did manage to find out there was a cheaper premium. i could choose the blue safer bronze at a rate that was still an increase over the plan i liked. the other problem? my individual deductible would be $6,350. and my family deductible would be $12,700. i fail to see anything affordable about this. chris of montgomery was notified that my policy was not a.c.a. compliant. paying $390 for family coverage. just found out comparable plan, silver, would be $704. my out-of-pocket went up, so did deductibles and co-pays. we make too much money and do not qualify for nor do i want a subsidy. lee from month gomry. our premium went up to $1,37478 a month. angela of greenville, our family of four is paying $417 a month and it is going to $765 a month. jim, my doctor retired and told me that he was not going to deal with the changes in the affordable care act. so i could not keep my doctor. both of my adult daughters got letters indicating their policies were canceled due to not meeting all the requirements of the new law. new policies being issued will be will 33% more expensive. one has a specialist doctor who is now going to charge patients a costly fee up front each year and pay for certificate vusses rendered. all of these effects are negative to my family. mr. speaker, these individuals and families are not statistics. they are real people from alabama's second congressional district whose lives are being made more difficult because of obamacare. i don't know why the president repeatedly misled the country about the true implications of this health care law. this is the kind of washington doublespeak, political doublespeak people are so fed up with. this time it is hurting people in a very real way. we have an opportunity here in the house this week to make it right by acting to protect americans from these rate hikes and plan cancellations. that's why i am a he a co-sponsor of keep your health plan act, which will allow health care plans currently being offered to continue next year just like the president promised. this bill also ensures that americans choosing to maintain their health care plans will not face a tax penalty under obamacare. i appreciate the leadership of chairman fred upton of michigan in bringing forth this legislation. the keep your health care -- health plan act won't fix every problem with obamacare, but it will offer real changes and peace of mind to americans affected by these changes. mr. speaker, this isn't a partisan issue. republicans and democrats alike recognize the basic unfairness that has occurred here. i urge my colleagues on both sides of the aisle to support the keep your health plan act. i yield back. . the speaker pro tempore: the gentlewoman's time has expired. the chair recognizes the gentleman from new jersey, mr. payne, for five minutes. without objection, so ordered. r. payne: mr. speaker, for millions of americans, the dream of access to affordable health care is becoming a reality thanks to the affordable care act. new jersey, 2.2 million people have already gained access to free preventative care. premiums will be 20% lower in 2014. seniors on medicare already received a 50% savings on prescription drugs, and more than 70,000 young adults in new jersey are able to see a doctor because they can stay on their parent's insurance. sadly, though, out of purely selfish political motivation, my republican colleagues are obsessed with making this law fail and are working overtime to take away the benefits millions of people are already enjoying. i challenge my republican colleagues to channel that same energy into making the law work so that millions can get the life-saving care that they deserve. look around your districts. how many of your constituents could benefit to access to life-saving health care, to free cancer screening and reduced prescription drug costs? they don't need a 47th or 48th or 49th vote to repeal the law. they need affordable, quality care that the a.c.a. provides, and they are counting on their leaders to make it work, not work against them to make it fail. i yield back. the speaker pro tempore: the gentleman yields back. the chair recognizes the gentleman from tennessee, mr. duncan, for five minutes. mr. duncan: i ask unanimous consent to address the house and to revise and extend. the speaker pro tempore: without objection, so ordered. dr. tom kim came to america after escaping north korea at the age of 6. rough a strong christian upbringing and belief in god, he devoted his life to others. he wished to open a clinic that provides free health care to the working poor in my district. the clinic would operate with a mission based on the bible verse matthew 25: 40, whatever you did for the least of these you did for me. from that vision came the free medical clinic of america, which this year celebrated its 20th anniversary and 11,000th new patient. what started as a small clinic alongside dr. kim's own practice in knoxville has grown to facilities in four other counties. most recently the office in knoxville gave dr. kim the director's community leadership award. this yearly honor is given to citizens who go above and beyond in service to their communities. mr. speaker, dr. tom kim is one of the most selfless and kindest men i've ever known and a man who possesses a contagious energy to help others. i wanted to bring his devotion to others to the attention of my colleagues. i hope the free medical clinic of america continues to be an example of humanity and christian service for many years to come. while i came here primarily to honor a health care hero, i want to make a few additional comments about health care. the more we learn about the so-called affordable care act, the worse it gets. it should be called the unaffordable care act, since cost estimates are already double or triple the estimated cost when it was passed. and federal health plans have always been low balled on the front end. medicare was supposed to cost about $12 billion after 25 years. instead, c.r.s. reports it costs almost 10 times that much and this year it will cost six times that amount or $600 billion. premiums are going up in preparation for requirements of the new law. the associated press reported hat one of the things may be paid coverage for those with small business. small businesses will not hire as many workers as it would to stay under 50 people, or switching people to part-time work. the state of virginia notified part-time workers that would not go over 30 hours. nd the new norm is two 20-hour-a-week job. one was famously quoted by saying we have to pass the law before we could find out what was in it. now we're finding out all the promises about keeping your plan if you liked it, keeping your doctors if you liked him, premiums would about down by as much as $2,500 a year were all false, exaggerated or at least incorrect. millions have lost or will lose their coverage. millions more are facing huge increases in their premiums. in our offices we've helped many people with medicare and medicaid problems and no one wants to see anyone denied medical care. however, before we start another program that we can't afford, we need to do more to eliminate the tremendous waste, fraud and abuse that exists in medicare and medicaid today. more significantly, some people and companies have become rich off of these two programs. the administrators of medicare and medicaid need to crack down on those who are turning medicare and medicaid into monetary bonanzas. one place to start is the in the huge discrepansansies for charges in hospitals. one hospital in dallas billed for lower joint replacement. and another one -- two hospitals in new york city varied by 321% what they charged for complicated asthma treatment. one billing an average of over $34,000 while the other charged a little over $8,000. columnist charles of "the washington post" says that wheelchair suppliers between $4,000 to $5,000 for a basic chair that costs the supplier $700. just yesterday in the oversight and government reform committee we had a hearing about the botched rollout of the affordable care website. already over 600 million dollars has been spent on this messed up, convoluted, confusing system. it's going to cost billions to straighten it out and keep updating the technology. none of this is going for actual health care. it is going to -- some well-connected government contractors who are getting rich at great expense to american taxpayers. what a great law this is destroying jobs for average americans but wonderful for lobbyists and government contractors. pete seth of the national taxpayers union said, quote, how ironic the affordable care act is slowing job creation outside the beltway the law is offering plenty of job opportunities to firms inside the beltway willing to promote it. how sad this is. mr. speaker, i yield back the balance of my time. the speaker pro tempore: the gentleman yields back. the chair recognizes the gentlewoman from california, ms. speier, for five minutes. ms. speier: thank you, mr. speaker. i ask unanimous consent to revise and extend my remarks. the speaker pro tempore: without objection, so ordered. ms. speier: thank you, mr. speaker. recently a courageous 21-year-old female naval academy student was bold enough to report that three men on the navy football team raped her while she was drunk. little did she know that when she came forward she would be put on trial, forced to testify and be cross-examined for more than 30 hours. she was asked humiliating and abusive questions for hours with the clear objective to intimidate her and destroy the case. what's so unbelievable is that her case hadn't even made it to trial. this was only the equivalent of a preliminary hearing called an article 32 hearing under the uniformed code of military justice. it's supposed to be used to determine if a case should go forward to trial. the truth is the article 32's have mutated and now serve to put the victim on trial, not the accused. her experience is not only being sexually assaulted but revictimized by the judicial system is all too common in the military. an article 32 proceedings, it is standard operating procedure for the defense team to subject the victim to every irrelevant, indecent and outright degrading question you could imagine. in the naval academy case, the victim was asked by one of the defense attorneys, quote, how wide do you open your mouth for oral sex, unquote. another question was asked of her, quote, did you feel like a ho the next morning, unquote. these questions would simply never ever be permitted in a civilian criminal trial, let alone in a preliminary hearing. none of this is in pursuit of the truth, of course. it's all an effort to make victims think twice about even coming forward or pursuing a case. at one point in the naval academy proceeding, the victim asked for a recess because of fatigue. lawyers for the alleged rapist scoffed, quote, what's so stressful about this, unquote. in the civilian world, a preliminary hearing is used to determine if there's probable cause, and if a case should go to trial. oftentimes the victim is never even called. and the victim is certainly not berated for hours about their previous sexual history. these proceedings are very brief and the scope of the hearing is limited to the question of probable cause. the five-day, 30-hour proceeding is such a glaring example of the difference between what justice looks like in the civilian courts and what it looks like in the military justice system. simply put, article 32 hearings are rigged in favor of the accused. the scales are so tilted in favor of the accused the system is upended. the proceedings also have a significant chilling effect on sexual assault reporting. although the numbers have climbed only 10% of the estimated 26,000 annual assaults are actually reported. now, think about this. 26,000 assaults every year in the military of both men and women, and mostly men, i might add, only 3,000 are reported. are we at all surprised that the numbers of reports are so small? less than 1% of the offenders are ever convicted. this is called military justice. after air force lieutenant general richard harding testified that 30% of the victims drop out during the investigative process, it is time for us to do something meaningful about article 32 hearings. that's why i'm introducing the article 32 reform act, along with my co-sponsor, congressman pat meehan, which will align these proceedings with what happens in a civilian preliminary hearing and will give victims the option of whether or not to testify at all. ironically, civilian victims are currently afforded this right in military courts, but not service members. that's right. we allow civilian victims not to testify in article 32's but force the brave service members who are victims to be subjected to this abusive process. this bill has bipartisan support in both the house and the senate and will finally put an end to these open-ended abusive hearings that revictimize those who come forward. it is time for us to clean up the military justice system. i yield back. the speaker pro tempore: the gentlewoman's time has expired. the chair recognizes the gentleman from texas, mr. green, for five minutes. mr. green: thank you, mr. chairman. mr. chairman, i rise today on a mission of mercy with a message of gratitude. i am grateful today to members of the foreign affairs committee, the chairperson, mr. royce, and the ranking member, mr. engel. i'm grateful that they have filed a resolution to support the people of the philippines. my mission of mercy is to ask for help for the people of the philippines, and this resolution, h.res. 404, speaks to some of what we may be able to do and it also addresses our sympathy for the people of the philippines. it expresses our solidarity with the people of the philippines. it expresses our continuing support for relief and reconstruction assistance for the people of the philippines. and it goes on to commend the filipino community in the united states of america for their efforts to organize and to help with the disaster relief. the philippines are our allies. the people of the philippines have been there with us through many struggles. . they are the victims of a force of nature, but they can survive this with our help. i want people to understand that there's a special relationship between america and the people of the philippines. they were there with us during world war ii. they fought side-by-side with our troops. and many of them fought and died together. my hope is that this special bond, this special connectivity that started long before world war ii but that continued through world war ii is something that will cause us to remember that these are our friends. they need our help. they will also -- they were also there during this war at the battle of bataan. more than 70,000 people, troops, were marched in the battle of bataan. and they were marched to a camp where they were to be incarcerated. many died along the way. many of them were americans. more than 10,000 americans were a part of that bataan death march, as it is called. we have more than 17,000 troops that are buried in the philippines. these persons are the ones that took up the clairian -- clarion call to answer the call to duty in a distant place. my hope is that we'll remember they sacrificed their lives and the people of the philippines mean a lot more to us than just a simple place on a map. i would remind us that on august 30 of 1951, 62 years ago, we signed a mutual defense treaty with the people of the philippines. this is not defense today in the traditional sense of defense, but it is defense in the sense that people are defenseless because they have been immacted -- impacted by a force of nature unlike any other we may have ever seen on our planet. this force of nature, according to usaid, has caused 9.7 million people to be affected. it's caused more than 23,000 people to have their homes damaged or destroyed. it's caused more than 600,000 people to be displaced. it's caused more than 700,000 people to find themselves being evacuated. and the death toll is still climbing and it's more than 2,000. so today i rise on a mission of mercy with a message of gratitude, the gratitude is to the united states of america and to this administration for sending in our troops, the marines have landed. and more are on the way. he we have an aircraft carrier, the u.s.s. george washington, one of our finest. it will be there to provide support services and produce water. but all of this is good, $20 million in aid, all good. but the world has to come to the aid of the people of the philippines. and we have to do more. i know that these are times of great austerity and i understand that we have cuts, but i also remember something that happened in my family when a person who lived in our community lost a job, and we were poor. we were not born into plenty. we were born into poverty. poor, we stillre understood that someone who had lost a job merited some support. i can remember my parents talking among themselves, between themselves about how we could help this family of thstanding our sense poverty. when i say we were poor, i was telling a member just yesterday that the subsidized public housing would have been a step up in life for us. we called it the projects an we looked forward to moving to the projects. we never did, but we looked forward to it. my point is this, even when we were poor and when we had little, we still made room to help others who had less. and this is what a great country does, i believe. a great country doesn't ask what will happen to us if we take up the cause of the people of the philippines. a great country will ask, what will happen to them if we do not take up the cause of the people of the philippines. i beg today that we do all we can to help and that we sign on to h.res. 404, expressing our sympathy for the people of the philippines. god bless you and god bless the united states of america and let's pray for the people of the philippines. the speaker pro tempore: the gentleman's time has expired. pursuant to clause 12-a of rule 1, the chair declares the house in recess until noon today. >> we'll also have live coverage of president obama coming up at 11:30 eastern. he's expected to talk about the health care lausm the "wall street journal" reporting the white house today will announce a plan for allowing insurance companies to continue offering existing individual insurance policies even if they fall short of coverage standards set by the 2010 health care law. jonathan allen of the politico tweeting, the fix would allow insurers to allow pre-a.c.a. policies into 2014 but require them they don't comply with the a.c.a. more at 11:35 live here on c-span. we take you live now to the briefing with the democratic leader in the house, nancy pelosi, just gotten under way. >> already secured quality coverage, i'm particularly proud of california's excellent numbers from our state marketplace in california. these figures were lower than what we had hoped, of course, t a product of the fact that the website is not fully up and running, but we know from the implementation in massachusetts that health care reform pace of enrollment is expected to increase in the next five months. that was their experience. and of course you combine that access to the website, that improves millions of americans will gain access to quality affordable health care. tomorrow the house republicans once again plan to cast their 46th vote to repeal or undermine the affordable care act and to put insurance company -- companies back in charge of america's health care. this republican initiative would undermine health care reform laws, causing premiums in the marketplace to spike, according to the center for budget and policy priorities. the upton bill is opposed by a broad coalition of groups. american heart association, american diabetes association, american cancer society. action network, national partnership for women and families, paralyzed veterans of america to name a few. as budget negotiations continue this week, when i say continue sporadically, it appears, i wish we could see a lot more activity on the part of the budget committee in session and in preparation for what i hope would be having a proposal before we leave for thanksgiving. there's no reason we shouldn't. there's no good reason that we shouldn't. everybody knows what the choices are that have -- need to be made, and we have always stood ready to find common ground, bipartisan common ground from commonsense solutions that will grow the economy, create jobs, lift the sequester, and reduce the deficit. the makings of a small package, i believe, are readily accessible to get this done before we leave. so that over christmas the period between thanksgiving and christmas, which is a high consumer confidence time, we want confidence high then, as well as year-end confidence in the markets and the rest, that we have removed all doubt that government will not be shut down. that we can find common ground, at least on a small package. we ought to address it and find out if that's possible, and if it isn't the american people should have to know why. we do know that the sequester will -- if it stays in place will cost hundreds of thousands of jobs, one estimate, 800,000 jobs. it must be lifted by the comment of the republican chair of the compropingses committee, the sequester does not enable us to meet our responsibilities to the american people. that's a republican chairman saying that. so we need to look at sequester. create jobs, grow the economy. we have initiatives to do that. we have urgency, we have the time right now, but with only 12 legislative days left, 13? very few legislative days left in this session, we should not be squandering it. 12 days s. that unbelievable, leading up to a time when we are supposed to do a budget? why were we off last week? when we were only here half a week the week before. so again the clock is ticking, time is awasting, we have important work to do. while they try to figure out what they want to do on the budget, which i hope is to work in a bipartisan way, to have a package by thanksgiving, we still have other issues to deal with. we have showed own eafer own again, spoken publicly and directly to the republican leadership, that the votes are there for comprehensive immigration reform. they can bring that to the floor. we have 191 co-sponsors, three republicans. that's good. and another 28 of them have spoken out publicly that they would vote for comprehensive immigration reform. that takes us where we need to be to pass that legislation. 199 co-sponsors, that includes delegate -- 199 co-sponsors, that includes delegates. 195 voting members. an of our caucus supports end to the employment -- ending discrimination in the workplace for people in the lgbt community. this is a huge number because sponsors for an immigration bill and for end -- why can't we just take a vote? let's just have a vote. we know there are a large number of republicans who are both -- again, 95% of the house democrats, probably more, but at least 95% of house democrats, support the background checks. yesterday, perhaps some of were you thrm, the 20th anniversary of the signing of the brady act. the brady legislation, brady bill. it became the law. 20 years ago there was then and now with sarah brady saying we've got to finish the job. we've got to finish the job. 90% of the american people support background checks and in the house -- in the house we have 185 co-sponsors on our bill. i said we might get one more today. 185, three are republicans. but nonetheless a large number of them come to the floor, i will vote for it. so we respect that. when it comes to the floor, then they'll take -- have the courage to vote for it. so background checks and comprehensive immigration reform. it's right there. it's right there. nd again requires it to be bipartisan because we don't have the majority, but we say to the speaker bring up immigration any way you want, singlely, jointly, severally, bring it up so we can take some votes on it. so that's -- i don't know that they ever intend to do anything. again, the legislative branch, the first article of the constitution, the first branch of government, the legislative branch and we are not legislating. we are not legislating. but we could. we could be, and hopefully we will get past this weekend on the a.c.a. the president will make an announcement soon, we'll all see what it is in about a half-hour. we are meeting today, our caucus, at 2:30. if you're interested we'll have some statement after that about how house democrats will proceed. and i look forward to seeing you then if you're interested. es, sir. >> how is it possible to implement this so people can keep their existing coverage without legislation and move the upton bill on the floor tomorrow? >> i'm not -- you know that i'm not going to tell you what i was briefed on. we'll see it together. it's in the public domain, i have seen articles about it already. nonetheless until the president speaks and we see exactly what he is proposing, and my understanding is that he will have -- that it will be administrative, we'll see. i have been briefed on what the possibilities were. now he will speak today. and we'll act upon that in our caucus later today when it happens and we see what it is. but the upton bill, the upton bill is a very dangerous bill. you know what it does, it undermines the affordable care act. and it does so by disrupting the pool and expanding the market of people who can buy into these plans that people had grand fathered in. it's completely disruptive. i don't know how much republican support has. they are not one mind on the subject, either. we'll have a proposal for our members to vote on something on the floor tomorrow that addresses the problem, it is a fix, we don't have a likelihood of passage, we don't have a likelihood, we'll see what form it takes, we'll see what the rules committee allows us. we would love for them to give us an alternative. they aren't likely to do that. we'll exercise our parliamentary options tomorrow. think of a belt and suspenders. do any of you wear belts or suspenders? >> i wear a belt. [laughter] >> well, think of a belt and suspenders. what the president will put forth will be, one, and what we will do will be the other. but everything will be under control. after tomorrow afternoon. and then we just -- i have to remind that nobody was writing stories of how glorious it was when the affordable care act was rolling out for over one year. whether it was eliminating the pre-existing conditions for children, whether it was kids staying on their parents' policy to 28 years old, whether it was extending medicare's life, having wellness prevention, checkups for seniors, no co-pay, no anything and having all kinds of tests that are important to seniors when it was issues that related to the implementation -- early implementation of the bill, that all went very smoothly. you know what we went through to pass it. you know what we went through to meet the court challenges. survive all of that. his is a -- this is a valued entity in america is about economic and health security for america's families. so we'll take the back and forth of glitches in the website causing problems, and it is problematic. it is not just about people not able to enroll. it is about those who are grandfathered in not being able to transition as easily. it's exacerbated some other challenges. they will be worked through. we'll be sailing and millions of people will be healthier and our country will be as well. yes, sir. >> without going into details, considered you have been briefed, what about the fix they'll announce? >> 2:30 is our meeting. probably 3:15 when i see it. i am not going to be talking about it now. you know that. >> are you confident that this will quell some of the uprising that has been coming out of house democrats? there's been a lot of anxiety among rank and file, not just the conservative-moderate democrats but some liberal democrats as well. >> some of those that fought very hard for the affordable care act and were instrumental in writing it and hoping to pass it. nobody's unhappy as i am that the rollout -- maybe the president of the united states. let me not put myself in that category. but the fact is that we're all of one mind. that there is no disagreement in our caucus. we have to have a fix. so if members are saying we want a fix, that's our normal conversation in our caucus. we're interested from time to time what the conversation is, but we're always, shall we say, a democratic caucus. so we are in agreement. we must have a fix. and we will. >> and this will calm some of the anxiety for some of your members? >> as i said, two of them are co-sponsors of the bill. i don't think they have niang zite. but -- have any anxiety. but we'll be good. we do what we have to do and it will take us to a path -- you have to -- while you want to make a fix, you have to make sure you're not selling seeds to higher -- for higher costs for people down the road. this is not just p.r. or i need a vote. it's about what we do and how that safeguards the affordability of this down the road, which is something that in the n bill, shifts wind. yes, sir. >> the speaker said yesterday he has no intent to ever go to conference with the senate in the immigration -- on the immigration reform bill. do you see something next year that will give congress the ability to enact reform or do you think until after the mid terms? >> i have not given up this year yet on immigration reform. i think it's outrageous that the speaker would say that we're not going to pass anything. we're not going to pass anything? first, i thought it meant he wasn't going to pass the senate bill which is understandable. nobody expected him to do that. but to say, is that it, is it over, is that your understanding, it's over, we are not going to have mmigration reform? >> i keep talking about president lincoln, public sentiment is everything and the public has to understand if we don't have a bill this is why. the bill we are advancing is very bipartisan. our members wanted more of this, more of that, this and that. i said if it hasn't passed in the senate or in the house in committee because we haven't had a chance on the floor yet in a bipartisan way, then it's not going to be included in the bill. so we have gone away from a bill that i perhaps may have written to a place that's bipartisan and that and doesn't have a wish list of everything everybody wants to see in a bill but subscribes to our wish to pass a bill. but the idea there wouldn't be an immigration bill, i think that's outrageous. i don't know whether people are taking it seriously or not, but if that's the indication, that's a dereliction of duty in terms of what our responsibilities are here. and we moves any credible, moral authority on the subject of immigration from any of the republicans. either their vote doesn't count in their caucus or their word doesn't mean anything to their speaker, but many of them would say publicly would support comprehensive immigration reform. others don't want to support it but it's ok if it goes. they just don't want to vote for it. there are others who are vehemently against it. i don't even accept that as a serious statement. because if it were a serious would nt because there be uproar about it. when they had a bipartisan bill passed in the senate, bipartisan bills passed in their homeland security committee, so i'm not even giving up on this year. it could come to the floor like that, go to conference, work out the differences. we may not have a signed bill this year but we certainly should have a path to the table which is a path to comprehensive immigration reform. es, sir. >> other members of your own conference called for changes to the n.s.a. data collection program. this is something you have generally been against. it's likely to come up -- >> generally been against? changes? >> you like the program as it is. >> no, no, no. i didn't like amash. right think we should away smarely this is an end to the program. what do we have as a substitute? is there something that could protect the american people? but i have been a critic of this program for a long time and i have taken my heat from the intelligence community for opposing this. this is something that is of the most serious nature. i like the fact that we will be having a public dialogue on the subject and you see two things. you see senator feinstein in the senate saying, it's ok, just leave it. and you see conyers and others in the house saying, get rid of it and so we're saying, what is it that we would do that would protect the american people, that is necessary to protect the american people? maybe metadata collecting isn't necessary. maybe it is. we have to find that out. think having two bills one eliminate, one key is a proper place to go to a conference to iron out. >> do you think the house will bring this up before the end of the year? >> you know what the agenda is around here. none of it is family friendly. it's family friendly for a family of retirees. [laughter] nothing against done. let's just go home early. if we come in at all. i think the discussion should take place. i don't know. we have these other priorities ght from the start which was build confidence. let's have a good budget agreement that at least shows we can come to that place even f it isn't large but it is significant. love for our native american brothers and sisters. let's pass an immigration bill that has a path to citizenship and stops the deportation of 1,100 people a day. let's end discrimination in the workplace. you would think at this time during this day and age it would be shameful to say i oppose ending discrimination in the workplace because of their sexual identity. and of course the background check. that's the priority we laid at the beginning of this year, at the beginning of this session. jobs, immigration reform, background checks, and of course there are other things we want to do. there doesn't seem to be time to do the priorities. i don't know how ready the committees are to take up these bills on the floor. the intelligence committee and judiciary committee have differing views on this subject. there's more work to be done. but i think it should be done. whether it's going to happen in the next 12 days, again, that's a very small amount of time, especially when we don't even -- work many hours legislative ly. >> you talk about preparing your own proposal and having belts and suspenders. how will this differ from the administrative fix that the president is proposing? is it more about giving your members to vote for as an alternative? >> 3:15 outside the room, because we have to discuss this with members as to what path they want to take. contrary to what you might think, we build consensus and then we get behind that. >> you don't think the -- >> no, i don't know that at all. i don't know that at all. one thing i do is i like to see what it is we are talking about and not think i understand what it is before it is said. and so my members can appreciate what it is as well. but i'm not for -- i can't decide between a belt and suspenders. i want to do both. i want to do both. again, as we're talking hopefully the website is improving. i am a big believer in technology so i believe it is possible for that to happen in he short period of time. and that will solve the challenges we are having. i look forward to the president's public presentation of the fix. i myself, i would probably not have so much in the public domain before because you're asking me what i think of it, so people might be asking other people what they think of it before we even really see what it is. my impression might be very positive. others might not. i'd just rather see what the president says. i promised you yesterday you could have a question so -- >> i'm sorry for the delay. i was wondering if you could comment on the immigration reform and what kind of plan b do you have in order to move this agenda. not this year, next year, i would like to hear some comments on that. sorry if you already commented on it. >> i did. i will just say, public sentiment is everything. the only way this is going to happen is if it's too hot to handle. this is a too hot to handle agenda. this is an agenda that the american people overwhelmingly support, immigration reform, background checks. immigration and background checks, those are supported across the board by the american people. a. b, on the subject specifically of immigration reform, it is absolutely essential that we get something done. we have a problem that we must address as soon as possible. so i am not giving up on this year. i hope somebody will wake up on the other side of the aisle and decide it's the right thing to do, at least to have a vote. just to have a vote. and if they -- why wouldn't they bring it up? there would be two reasons they wouldn't bring it up. because they know we have the votes, right? or they don't think we have the votes. and that's the end of the day. they are not bringing it up because they know we have the votes are there to pass something to go to conference to come back and be voted upon and go to the president's desk. so as to your question, over and over again this has to be more outside pressure. too hot to handle. at's how we passed the violence against women act. you remember they didn't want to take it up. 600 days passed since the expiration of the authorization of the violence against women act, which outside, outside, outside pressure, pressure, pressure. finally they brought it to the floor but only if they could bring another bill that said we don't -- ours was ending violence against women and all the beautiful initiatives that sprung from that legislation. their bill were -- unless you're an immigrant woman, a native american woman or lgbt woman, that gave cover -- i guess you could say cover. i don't know if that's a proper word. to their members so that some of them could vote for the violence against women act. i add over 60% of the republicans voted against the violence against women act. over 60% of the republicans violence ve toll -- against women if you're lgbt, if you're native american or if you're an immigrant so we have a difference of opinion here. so getting back to the immigration, i think we have to do what we did against the violence against women act is to take it to the people and have them weigh in with their members of congress even if they are not going to win their vote, they could win their support to urge the speaker to bring the bill to the floor. by the way, $150 billion to our economy in the first year, nearly $1 trillion, over $900 billion to our economy over the 10-year period, which is how we do bills, budgeting, 10-year periods. so this is an economic initiative as well as being an immigration issue as well as being a moral issue for our country, our economy will benefit, our prestige will grow as a country because we do as we say, we respect every person in our country. thank you very much. office, n, 11:30, my 3:15, what did you say, 3:30 -- as my kids say, everybody who cared was there. we'll see who really cares. >> 2:30, 2:45. >> thank you. [captioning performed by national captioning institute] [captions copyright national able satellite corp. 2013] >> white house officials will be on capitol hill today to speak with members about the carekir. also, we hope to bring you speaker boehner's comments coming up in about 15 minutes at 11:30 eastern. president obama at 11:35 speaking from the white house. a democratic official says the president has decided to allow the sell of canceled individual health insurance policies to existing customers, part of a plan to satisfy public discontent with obamacare. again, more about that from the president at 11:35 and followed by your comments and your calls. until then, part of this morning's "washington journal." "washington journal" continues. host: and we're become with the president and founder of voice of the people. he's also the public consultation program director at the university of maryland's school of public policy here to talk about gridlock in washington. welcome. let me show our viewers what the latest polls show about gridlock and the impact of it. why americans disapprove of congress' job performance. 59% in a gallup poll say it's because ineffectiveness and partisan gridlock. 19% say performance on certain issues. and 9% poor ethics, behavior, 15%, other. voting for incumbents, according to a recent october poll, 60% of americans would completely replace all their members of congress and 35% would keep a selected few. so what's going on here? why are people so frustrated with gridlock in washington? guest: well, the fact of gridlock is quite vivid with the shutdown and all the problems they have, solving with the problems that congress is facing. what they see is, what's behind this, there are special interests that are competing and are pulling on different sides of congress and that is creating this gridlock. and they think that congress is paying attention to the special interests, not to the people, and they think if they listen to the people more, this kind of gridlock would not happen. host: you wrote a piece recently in the christian science monitor, and you wrote this -- the founders believed that the sense of the people, as alexander hamilton put it, would naturally align with the common good. and that when elected leaders got at logger heads, the people should -- what are you suggesting? guest: what we're looking for is to give the people a greater voice, to bring the people to the table when decisions are being made in congress. so it is to have a large representative sample of the american people so there are a few hundred of them in every congressional district that they are briefed on the issues that congress is dealing with, they hear the arguments, pro and con, and ultimately give their views of what congress should be doing so congress can really hear from the people, and the evidence is that -- the views of the people are not as polarized as congress as they are more apt to move through these -- through these impasses. host: you call them a citizen cabinet. how would it work? guest: well, they would -- people would be selected scientifically to be representative of the population using the most advanced scientific methods so you get a kind of microcosm of every congressional district all across the country and then these people would be connected online. if people don't have internet access, they would be given it so it's truly representative and then on a regular basis they would go through these processes what we call policymaking simulations. simulating the process that policymakers go through. everything about this would be vetted with members on both sides of the aisle, with staffers, with experts so that everybody ensures that the presentation is fair and balanced and that the arguments that they hear, pro and con, are the strongest arguments so people that have the experience, just like a member of congress has when they get briefed, they go on the floor and they hear the pro and con arguments and then ultimately they weigh in. host: how would you make sure that it's not just the party basis that get involved in these cabinet committees? you know, in other words, with gerrymandering, you have a conservative district, when the people that want to get involved that would be involved be the people that that member already hears from and represents? guest: well, we did a poll on this and we asked people if you were asked to be part of the citizen cabinet would you agree assuming it would take an hour or two? and 78% said they would be willing to make that time commitment. americans really do want to have their voice heard. if they had confidence they would be heard, a large segment of the population would want to be involved, not just the standard political activists. host: how would their voice be heard by every member of congress? guest: every member of congress would hear from their representative sample of their constituents so they would really know what the views are in their district. host: and how would these people -- guest: and the senators in their state, of course. host: how would these people make informed decisions? guest: well, they would be given these briefings so they would be -- the key elements of the situation around a particular bill or issue would be presented to them. sometimes, too, they would be -- need to face a problem like dealing with the budget. now, if you ask them the standard poll, do you want to cut the deficit, a majority says yes. do you want to increase taxes, do you want to increase taxes, no, i really don't want to increase taxes. do you want to cut spending? no, i don't want to cut spending in this area, this area, this area, no. so it seems like the public is coherent. but it turns like if you give people the tools, this is how the budget is ranged, this is how the discretionary budget broken out, here are the sources of revenue -- and here's the deficit, tell us how you want to balance this, how you want to deal with it, what is the best budget you have. and people getting constant feedback on the constant impact of the budget. now, when we did that with the representative example of the public, they cut it over $400 billion over one year and that's dealing with the discretionary budget. it's shown they can deal with the social security shortfall, so there are -- there's real evidence that when you get people -- give people the tools, they go into a problem-solving mode and they don't just look out for their own interests. one of the things we look for, when people set income tax rates, do they favor their own income bracket, and they didn't. they were basically the same. people do like the founders said, naturally step back and think about the common good. the decisions they make are not simply in terms of their self-interest. host: a tweet here from a viewer who says -- guest: well, it's boten worse, the amount of money -- well, it's gotten worse, the amount of money flowing into congress influencing decisions is getting stronger and when it happens it's natural that the public becomes more marginalized. and the means that members have, you would think with the internet and people would have better means of communicating with their members, but in fact it's just created a cacophony. there's so much input coming through so many sources through the internet they can't sort it out. what you need is a scientific approach. get a representative sample and the other part of it is a lot of things people say is based on misinformation and they are expressing the feeling about a concern about this, a concern about that. they are not looking at the whole big picture and really making a recommendation. the people think and the founders thought that's really what should guide congress, government. it's what the founders called a conclusions people come to when they really have a chance to consider and the american people think that is what should be guiding government. this is a means to create that voice. host: one tweets in -- host: terry from akron, ohio, independent caller. caller: oh, i think -- i really appreciate what you're on to, your guest, and i don't know what we can really do about uninformed, apathetic and ignorant voters that just don't know the issues but gretta kind of stole my thunder. i want you to comment on the real bad jerry mannedering that took place in ohio -- gerrymandering that took place in ohio where we get all of these congressional representatives who are republicans and i'll hang up and listen to your comment. guest: well, jerry handering is -- gerrymandering is a thing that's reduced the relevance of the public because it's driven by the party and that is something that we're trying to counter here, to give the public as a whole voice, not just the way that the parties can have an impact through gerrymandering or by getting money from special interests and trying to promote their candidates or their message. it's getting to the views of the people. you know, most people are not so partisan. that is -- when people are presented arguments, pro and con, on these issues, we found in most cases, a majority finds the pro arguments somewhat convincing and the con arguments somewhat convincing. people look at both issues. yes, there's something valuable on both sides. let's find a way to have both of those values integrated into what we make in terms of laws, in terms of policy. connecticut, democratic caller. caller: good morning. thank goodness for c-span. i have two questions. one is, how does mr. krall see america today as a democracy or a republic? and my second question would be, how do you view the american state of today? would we be better off as a democracy or as a republic? and i'll take my answer off the air. thank you. guest: i go back to the founders. the founders thought in terms of a republic but with democratic principles guiding it. what they said, what we need are leaders who are thinking in terms of the common good, guided by the sense of the people. and they thought the people should play a very central role. that's why they started the constitution off with the phrase, we the people. the people are the basis of the legitimacy in this country. that's what the american people think. that's what the founders thought should happen. now, leaders know more. they have more information and ultimately they need to make the decisions. and the american people agree with that. but they need to be guided by the people, by the values of people and the founders said, when they got to loggerheads, when they were having trouble making decisions, then the public can come in and play the role of arbiters, as thomas jefferson said. so they can help -- when this happens, they can help break the logjam. host: john in santa paula, california, republican caller. caller: good morning. about the gridlock, i'd like to say that my view would be, it's caused by the lack of a budget. and by not having a federal budget, it allows both sides to stay apart. and if -- what should happen is they should come together and get a budget and there are going to be sticking points and that's where the president has to step in and break the logjam. an example of that would be the six-panel -- the superpanel for the sequester. it dead locked it 6-6. i think there were two issue points where they couldn't agree on. president obama should have stepped in and made the decision on those two parts, those two points and gone forward. but the lack of budget for the last six or seven years has allowed both sides to stay apart. and i think that's the primary cause for the gridlock. guest: yeah, i think a budget would be valuable to find a common framework for how to move forward, and this is another example of where i think the public can play an important role. as mentioned, when people are given the budget, they are able to come together as find a coherent budget that makes sense, that reduces the deficit, that deals with social security. so it's -- it is, again, the problem of polar great lakes, and this -- polarization, and this is largely rooted in the large extent special interests that have impact on members are encouraging them or demanding that they be more rigid and when there is that rigidity on both sides, then it's hard to come together, find common ground. hopefully the voice of the people will have a way of doing that. will have a way of creating a model for that and will sort of lead the way and encourage members on both sides to show some more flexibility and move toward common ground. guest: yeah. it's not a question of more laws or fewer laws. it's -- sometimes it's just a question of getting a -- signing the kind of common sense about the issues -- finding a kind of common sense about the issues and that can guide the policies that are made as well as the laws that are made and just the way of -- that congress deals between the parties and between congress and the executive branch. host: so part of the citizen cabinet you want to set up where people would let their members of congress know how they feel on certain big issues , what -- why not go ahead and just start it? why not work with a member of congress and say we want to set this up, you should do this? guest: that's funny you should say that because you'll learn more about it on vop.org, our website. we are beginning to build some keab nets in some states and districts, working with some members that are interested in doing that. so we will begin with foundation money to start building those -- building those cabinets one at a time. we ultimately see this as a public-private partnership, that the public needs to play a role. and thus we are looking for donations. you can help out. toward building this -- the citizen cabinets and that's the urpose of voice of the people, vop.org. guest: yeah. i don't know if i'd agree with that. earmarks are controversial. t i think if you had the public's views locally as well as nationally on some of the same issues that involve the earmarks that that would be constructive and help counter some of the influence of special interests or affected special interests through the earmarks. host: we'll go to shawn next, river falls, wisconsin, democratic caller. hi there, shawn. caller: hi there, good morning. good morning, mr. kull. guest: good morning. caller: what do you see the limits of congressional reform? do you ever foresee partial elem nation of the house? if the original intention was to have the most responsive body of elected officials, do you think this could be replaced with something from federal, social media platform? do you think this would be more effective? it seems like a lot of elections have been decided based on scandals. if you remember in 2006, i think there were close to 20 congressional scandals in the house. people really aren't voting based on issues. ey're voting on, you know, gossip. host: ethic violations. caller: yeah. host: all right. guest: i don't think we're going to have a complete transformation of the structure of congress. we have so much trouble getting agreement on how to run the daily business of congress, budget and so on, but i do think there are reforms that have potential for reducing the influence of money and for moving beyond the polarization and giving people voice is one of those. host: we've run out of time but for more information you can go to vop.org. thank you, sir. appreciate it. guest: thank you for having me. >> a live look inside the brady press briefing room at the white house. president obama is going to be speaking shortly, and we expect him to announce some plans concerning the affordable care act. in particular, the allowing individuals to retain the policies that would have been canceled under the law. the president set to speak right about now. we will have live coverage here on c-span when he does start. we expect to also take your phone calls and comments following the press ppt's remarks as well. the president later today heads to cleveland. he'll be speaking at a steel factory there on the economy. but, again, we'll hear from the president next here on c-span. should be momentarily, and we will stay here live on c-span. >> it may be a minute or two at the white house for the president. so while we can we'll take you live to the capitol to hear speaker john boehner. live coverage. >> 100,000 people have gotten health insurance through obamacare exchanges and many -- tens of thousands have gotten -- have taken advantage of the medicaid expansion. how can you now -- how can you now get rid of the law if this many people have actually gotten their health insurance through it? >> well, how about the millions of americans who've lost their insurance and millions more that will lose their insurance over the next year as the small business plan years come up and all of a sudden those policies are no longer available? a -- you can't fix a -- government-run health care plan called obamacare. this is going to destroy the best health care delivery system in the world. you go back four, five months ago, the congressional budget office said even after this law's in effect for 10 years, 10 years from now there will still be 30 million americans uninsured. that is not the promise that was made to the american people . it's just not fixable. >> mr. speaker, one of the big criticisms from democrats, your majority, is you don't seem to do anything. the year comes to an end in a few weeks, what would you say the republicans have to show this year? >> i think we've been trying to stay focused on the economy, try to do those things that would help create a better economy and whether it's stopping needless and burdensome regulations that are killing jobs in america, whether it's trying to fix a tax code that's so complicated that most americans could never figure out on their own, whether it's dealing with the farm bill, whether it's dealing with water projects, there's lots that can be done. listen, we have a very divided country and we have a very divided government. i'm not going to sit here and underestimate the difficulty in finding the common ground. there's not as much common ground here as there used to be. but our job is to find that common ground. i intend to do it. >> mr. speaker, between $20 billion and $30 billion in budget savings in the farm bill, depending which version is ultimately written. do you favor using that savings toward deficit reduction in the budget agreement or should it be kept separate? >> i think it's a separate issue. i made that very clear to chairman ryan. >> mr. speaker, last week in the senate, 10 republicans joined democratic caucus in approving the employment nondiscrimination act. across the bill they say there are sufficient votes to pass it. will republican leadership allow that bill on the floor? >> i am opposed to discrimination of any kind in the workplace and anyplace else. but i think this legislation that i've dealt with as chairman of the education and work force committee long before i was back in the leadership is unnecessary and would provide a basis for frivolous lawsuits. people are already protected in the workplace. i'm opposed to continuing this. listen, i understand people have different opinions on this issue and i respect those opinions. but as someone that's worked in this employment law area for all of my years in the state house, all of my years here, i see no basis or no need for this. >> the ndaa, you didn't mention that. >> there's a whole laundry list of issues that can yet be finished and i'm hopeful they will be. >> do you think the n.s.a. will become an issue again? -- a lot back here more -- >> i don't know in the national defense authorization bill that that issue ought to be dealt with. it ought to be dealt with on its own. this is a very -- it's an important issue. what the n.s.a. does, protects the american people, protects, frankly, our allies around the world. yes, i think there are changes that need to be made. but they need to be made in a very thoughtful way. very. >> mr. speaker, the obama administration is encouraging congress to hold off on sanctions on iran. you guys already passed extended sanctions on iran. do you think there's any virtue on holding off on those sanctions while negotiations are going on between countries in that country? >> listen, we've been down this road with iran many times. and until the iranians are willing to stop all development of their nuclear program, there's no reason for us to lift these sanctions. the house has already acted on further sanctions, or as i would describe them, further tools for the administration's toolbox. it's over in the senate. i'll leave that decision to the senate. >> speaker boehner, you talked about earlier obamacare can't be fixed. you're having the vote tomorrow to deal with this one issue. will the house vote on a bill o replace obamacare this year? >> this year is quickly coming to a close. i think it's too early to make that prediction, pure and simple. >> are you working on a replacement proposal? >> you know, when we -- when obamacare was on the floor of the house 3 1/2 years ago, we offered an alternative. u can go to g.o.p..gov and you can see the -- gop.gov and you can see the nine issues that we've been for for the last four, five years. there are commonsense things we can do to help the american ople have better access to high-quality, affordable health insurance and that's what we ought to be doing. >> comments from house speaker john boehner on capitol hill. in advance of president obama speaking here momentarily at the white house. he's expected to announce policy change in the affordable care act allowing those who like their insurance policy to keep it into 2014. more details ahead with president obama. as you can see, reporters gathered for his briefing and we'll have it for you live here on c-span, if we can, ahead of the house which is set to come in 15 minutes. while we wait for president obama, we'll hear from democratic leader, nancy pelosi, who just finished up here briefing on the -- at the capitol a few minutes ago. >> good morning, everyone. so much going on here, but i know that anyone who watches tv or reads the papers has to be very saddened and deeply moved about what is happening in the philippines. i am very blessed to have in my district a large and vibrant filipino american community as is our country in general blessed with that. and many of these families have families and friends in the philippines, to see the loss of fe, the property damage in terms of how are these people ever going to be made whole is just so very, very tragic. it was emotional for me monday at arlington, we were there for the placing of the reef, some of the filipino vets who risked everything for our country, one of them at arlington was in the baton death march. we owe them so much. so all of this connection that we have drives home even further. it would be tragic no matter who it is. but our connection there heightens our responsibility to elp in any way we can. yesterday, the obama administration released figures for the first months of the open enrollment on the affordable care act. as you know nearly one million people have completed the eligibility provide sess. that is really a very important -- process. that is really a very important figures. more than 500,000 americans, if you combine those on medicaid and the 100,000 of those who did enroll already secured quality coverage. i'm particularly proud of california's excellent numbers from our state marketplace in california. these figures were lower than what we had hoped, of course, but a product of the fact that the website is not fully up and running. but we know from the implementation in massachusetts that health care reform pace of enrollment is expected to increase in the next five months. that was their experience. if you combine that with access to the website, millions of americans will gain access to quality, affordable health care. tomorrow, the house republicans once again plan to cast their 46th vote to repeal or undermine the affordable care act and to put insurance companies badge in charge of america's -- back in charge of america's health care. this initiative would undermine health care reform laws by causing premiums in the marketplace to spike, according to the center for budget and policy priorities. the upton bill is opposed by a broad coalition of groups. american heart association, american diabetes association, american cancer society, action network, national partnership for women and families, paralyzed veterans of america, to name a few. as budget negotiations continue this week, when i say continue, sporadically, it appears, i wish we could see a lot more activity on the part of the budget committee in session and in preparation for what i hope would be having a proposal before we leave for thanksgiving. there's no reason we shouldn't. there's no good reason that we shouldn't. everybody knows what the choices are that have -- need be made, and we have always stood ready to find common ground, bipartisan common ground for commonsense solutions that will grow the economy, create jobs, lift the sequester and reduce the deficit. the makings of a small package, i believe, are readily accessible to get this done before we leave so that over christmas, the period between thanksgiving and christmas, which is a high consumer confidence time, we want confidence high then as well as year-end confidence in the markets. we remove all doubt that government will not be shut down, that we can find common ground, at least on a small package. we ought to just address it and find out if that's possible. and if it isn't, the american people should have to know why. the -- we do know that the sequester will -- if it stays in place, will cost hundreds of thousands of jobs by one estimate, 800,000 jobs. it must be lifted. by the comments of the republican chair of the appropriations committee, the sequester does not enable us to meet our responsibilities to the american people. that's a republican chairman saying that. so we need to lift the sequester, grow the economy. we have initiatives to do that. we have urgency. we have the time right now. with only, what, 12 legislative days left, is it 13, very few legislative days left in this session. we should not be squandering. we were offered 12 days. is that unbelievable, leading up to a time when we are supposed to be doing a budge? why were we off last week when we were only here a half a week the week before? so again, the clock is ticking. time is wasting. we have important work to do, and while they try to figure out what they want to do on the budget, which i hope is to work in a bipartisan way to have a package by thanksgiving, we still have other issues to deal with. we have showed over and over again, spoken publicly and directly to the republican leadership that the votes are there for comprehensive immigration reform. they can bring that to the floor. we have 191 co-sponsors. three republicans. that's good. and another 28 of them have spoken out publicly that they would vote for comprehensive immigration reform. that takes us where we need to be to pass that legislation. 199 co-sponsors, including -- that includes delegates. of 95 voting members, 95% employment pports non-- ending discrimination in the workplace for people in the lgbt community. this is a huge number of co-sponsors for an immigration bill and for enda. why can't we take a vote? we need to take a vote. we know there are a large number of -- 95% of the house democrats. probably more. at least 95% of house democrats support enda. background checks. yesterday, some -- perhaps some of you were there when we observed the 20th anniversary of the signing of the brady act. the brady legislation. the brady bill. but it became the law. and 20 years ago there was then saying with sarah brady we got to finish the job. 90% of the american people support background checks, and yet -- in the house we have -- in the house we have 185 co-sponsors on the bill. i said we might get one more today. 185. three are republicans. but nonetheless, a large number of them said if it comes to the floor i will vote for it. so we respect that. when it comes to the floor, then they'll take -- have the courage to vote for it. so enda, background checks and comprehensive immigration reform is right there. it's right there. again, requires it to be bipartisan because we don't have the majority, but we say to the speaker, bring up immigration any way you want, singley, jointly, separately, just bring it up so we can take some vothse -- votes on it. i don't know if they ever intend to do anything. again, the legislative branch, the first article of the constitution, the first branch of government, the legislative branch and we're not legislating. we're not legislating. but we could. we could be and hopefully we will get past this had weekend on the a.c.a. the president will make an announcement soon. we will all see what it is in about half an hour. we are meeting today, our caucus, at 2:30. if you're interested, we will have some statement after that but how we will -- how house democrats will proceed. and i look forward to seeing you then, if you're interested. yes, sir. >> so have you not been briefed on the president's plan? >> i have been briefed. >> that said, how is it possible to implement this so people could keep their existing coverage without legislation and move the upton bill on the floor tomorrow? >> well, what -- i'm not -- you know that i'm not going to tell you what i was briefed on. we will all see it together. it's in the public domain. i've seen articles about it already. but nonetheless, until the president speaks and we see exactly what he's proposing, and my understanding is that he will have -- that it will be administrative. we'll see. i really don't know. we'll see when he comes out to say that. but i've been briefed on what the possibilities were and now he will speak today and then we will act upon that in our caucus later today when it happens and we see what it is. upton upton bill -- the bill is a dangerous bill. what it does, not only does it undermine the affordable care does so might as -- it by disrupting the pools and expanding the market of people who can buy into these plans that people had grandfathered in. so it's completely disruptive. i don't know how much republicans support it has. they are not of one mind on the subject either. but we will have a proposal for our members to vote on something on the nor -- floor tomorrow that addresses the problem, it is a fix. we don't have the likelihood of passage. we don't have a likelihood -- we'll see what form it takes. we will see what the rules committee allows us. we will love for them to give us an alternative. we will see if they are likely to do that, but we'll exercise our parliamentary options with something tomorrow. so think of a belt and suspenders. do any of you wear belts and suspenders? >> i wear a belt. >> ok. [laughter] >> well, think of a belt and suspenders, what the president will put forth will be one and what we will do will be the other. but everything will be under control after tomorrow afternoon. and then we just -- i have to remind that nobody was writing stories how glorious it was when the affordable care act was rolling out for over one year. whether it was eliminating the pre-existing conditions for children, whether it was kids staying on their parents' policy, 18 to 26 years old, whether it was extending medicare's life, having wellness prevention, checkups for seniors, no co-pay, no anything, and having all kinds of tests that are important to seniors when it was issues that related to the implementation -- early implementation of the bill. that all went very smoothly. you know what we went through to pass it. you know what we went through to meet the court challenges. it survived all of that. this is a -- this is a valued entity in america. it's about economic and health security for america's families. so we'll take the back and forth of glitches in the website causing problems. and they are -- it is problematic. it's not just about people not being under -- able to enroll. it's about those who are grandfathered in not being able to transition easily. it's exacerbated some other challenges, but they will be worked through. we'll be sailing and millions of people will be healthier and our country will be as well. yes, sir. >> without going into details on what you have been briefed, what's your assessment of the fix they are going planning to announce there? >> 2:30 is our meeting. probably 3:15 will be when i see it and i will let you know what i think about it. but i am not going to be talking about it now. you know that. >> are you confident that this will quell some of the uprising that has been coming out of house democrats? there's been a lot of anxiety among rank and file, not just -- not just the conservative-moderate democrats but solid liberal blue democrats as well. >> some of the people fought very hard for the affordable care act and were instrumental in writing it and helping to pass it. nd nobody is unhappy as i am of the rollout. maybe the president of the united states. let me not put myself in that category. but the fact is that we are all of one mind. there is no disagreement in our caucus. we have to have a fix. so if members are saying we want a fix, that's our normal conversation in our caucus. you're interested from time to time in what the conversation is, but we're always, shall we say, a democratic caucus. so we are in agreement. we must have a fix. and we will. >> and this will calm some of the anxiety among your members? >> i think some of them -- as i said, two of them were co-sponsors of the bill and did not vote for the affordable care act. i don't think they have niang zite. we'll be good -- have any anxiety. we'll be good. we do what we have to do and that's what we'll do and it will take us to a path -- you have to -- while you want to make a fix, you have to make sure you're not selling seeds for higher costs to other people down the road. or, s is not just p.r. you know, i need a vote. it's about what we do and how that safeguards the affordability -- >> democratic leader pelosi's comments from within the hour at the capitol live here at the white house waiting for the president's comments on the affordable care act. we expect him to say that people who like their insurance policies will be able to keep it into 2014. a change in the current policy. we will have to tell you we are going to have to break away here for our coverage of the u.s. house live but let you know that this briefing by the president will be carried live on c-span.org. we'll also show it to you later in our schedule. the president's in cleveland this afternoon speaking on the economy. he's visiting a steel mill. we'll have that live at 3:40 eastern on c-span3. house taking up work on the water resources bill. they'll take up a bill -- they're live. r prayer today wild ur guest chaplain from midway baptist church in north carolina. the chaplain: almighty god, giver of eternal life, we thank you for this great republic. a nation conceived in religious liberty and the free exercise thereof. today as generations before us we seek your divine

Related Keywords

Vietnam , Republic Of , New York , United States , Alabama , Philippines , North Carolina , Texas , Afghanistan , Iran , Akron , Ohio , California , Virginia , Wisconsin , Oregon , Michigan , Washington , District Of Columbia , Kabul , Kabol , Connecticut , Kingwood , Alabama State University , River Falls , Iraq , Tennessee , New Jersey , Greenville , Massachusetts , North Korea , Houston , Dallas , Capitol Hill , Americans , Filipino , America , Iraqis , Afghans , Iranians , Afghan , Iraqi , American , Tom Kim , Allison Strickland , Jonathan Allen , John Roberts , Nancy Pelosi , Pete Seth , George Mason , Sean Barry , Sarah Brady , Earl Benny , Dan Finn , Thomas Jefferson , Pat Meehan , Al Qaeda , John A Boehner , Estelle Gardner , Sean Cunningham , Kirk Johnson , John Boehner , Marian Porter , Fred Upton , Santa Paula , Upton , Matt Keller , Tom Gardner Jr , Richard Harding ,