tv U.S. House of Representatives CSPAN December 10, 2013 10:00am-9:01pm EST
a bill for two days for $26. pay and says i can't they say, okay, then $17,000. redick us l a really amount for two days of care, i think. we need a national discussion what's reasonable in terms prices a. and we need to get to better place, because people are really suffering for really basic care. this is not a rare cancer. common medical experience that millions of people are going to need each year. elizabeth check out nytimes.com work at nyt llow her on twitter at & rosenthal. >> thanks for having me. >> that will be it for our show today. earlier this morning, president obama was at a memorial service south africa.
distinguished guests, to be singular honor with you today celebrate a life like no other. south africa ,of people of every race and every the world thanks ou for sharing nelson mandela with us. his struggle was your struggle. his triumph was your triumph. your dignity and your hope found expression in his life and your is his your democracy
cherished legacy. you'llgize any man, to capture in words not facts and the dates but the a life person, l truth of a their private joys and sorrows, he quiet moments and unique illuminate t someone. he moved the nation towards justice and in the process moved around the world. i, a boy ng world war herding cattle.
he would emerge as the last 20th liberator of the century. like gandhi he would lead a movement movement, a that had little prospects for success. would give a he voice to the claims of the oppressed and the moral of racial justice. he would endure a brutal imprisonment that began in the kennedy and cruise chef and reached the final days the cold war. emerging from prison he would like abraham lincoln hold his together when it was breaking apart and like america's founding fathers he erect a constitutional rder to preserve freedom for
future generations. and mitment to democracy rule of law ratified not only by is election but by his willingness to step down from after only one term. his life, the scope of his ccomplishments, the adoration it's rightly earned, tempti tempting, i think, to remember an icon ndela as smiling detached from the affairs. strongly resisted such a lifeless portrait.
sharing he insisted with us his doubts and his fears, his miscalculations along his victories. said, nt, he unless you think of a saint as sinner who keeps on trying. precisely because he could admit the imperfection, ecause he could be so full of good humor, even mischief that e the heavy burdens he carried. he was a man of flesh and blood, and a husband, a father and a friend. learned so hy we much from him and that's why we can learn from him still. he achieved was nevitable in the arc of his
life we see a man who earned his lace in history through truggles and shrewdness and persistence and faith. he tells us what is possible not pages of history books but in our own lives as well. the power of us action of taking risks on behalf our ideals. perhaps mandela was right that proud rited a rebelliousness, a stubborn sense from his father and we know he shared with millions f black and colored south a icans the anger born of thousand indignities, a thousand desire ered moments, a to fight the system that imprisoned my people, he said.
giants, he her disciplined his anger channelled fight in the rganization and platform and strategies for action so men and women could stand up for their given dignity. moreover, he accepted the of his actions knowing that standing up to injusticenterests and carried the price. i have fought against white domination and i have fought black domination. 've cherished the ideal of a democratic and free society in which all persons live together and equal
opportunities. it is an ideal which i hope to for and to achieve, but it need be it is an ideal for which prepared to die. mandela taught us the power of the n but also taught us ower of ideas, the importance of reason and argument, the need o study not only those who you agree with but also those who you don't agree with. understood that ideas cannot be contained by prison walls or sniper's ed by a bullet. he turned his trial into an apartheid because of his eloquent and his passion but also because of his training as an advocate. decades of prison to
harpen his arguments but also to spread his thrust for knowledge to others in the movement. and he learned the language and oppressors so his one day he might better convey freedom ow their own depe did h depends upon his. mandela demonstrated that action hat ideas are not enough no matter how right they must also wall and ed in the institution. practical, testing his belief against the hard surface in history.nce on core principals he was whiches why he could of relief rs reminding the regime that enter into nnot
contracts. but as he showed in pain-staking negotiations the transfer of and draft through law he was not afraid to compromise for a larger goal. and because he was not only a a der of a movement but skillful politician, the was itution that emerged worthy of this multi-racial visions , true to his of law that protect mine kwrorlt as well as majority rights and precious freedom of every south african. finally, mandela understood the human t's bind spirit. word in south africa, a word that captures mandela's recognition , his
that we are all bound together invisible to re the eye that there's a 1ness to achieve that we ourselves by sharing ourselves for thoses and caring around us. of an never know how much this sense was innate in him or a dark was shaped in and solitary self. chapters ember the arge and small introducing his jailers as honored guests at his a pitch ion and taking his uniform and turning amily's heartbreak that revealed the depth of his empathy and understanding. he not only embodied it but millions to find that
truth within themselves. like mandela to preach not just the prisoner but jailer as well. to show that you must trust so that they may trust ou and teach that recollect he changed laws but also changed hearts. the people of south africa, inspired around the passing is a time of celebrate a a time heroic life. should also it
prompt in each of us a time for honesty ection with regardless of our station or must ask how we well have i applied his lessons own life? i ask myself.n president, we a know that like out africa, the had to overcome segregation. racial as was true here, it took sacrifice, the sacrifice of people known and unknown to see the dawn of a new day. michelle and i are beneficiaries struggle. in america and in south all a and in countries
around the globe we cannot allow our progress to cloud the fact is not yet done. he struggles that follow the for ry of formal equality universal franchise may not be illed with drama and moral clarity as those that came before but they're no less important. world today, we still see children suffering disease.ger and we still see rundown schools. young people without prospects for the future. round the world today, men and woman are still imprisoned for their political beliefs and till persecuted for what they look like and how they worship and who they love. that is happening today. nd so, we too, must act on
behalf of justice. behalf of peace. people who o many happily embrace mandela's legacy recollect sill layings but passionately resist modest eform that challenge poverty and growing inequality. leaders who many claim solidarity with his struggle for freedom but do not it from their own people. there are too many of us, sidelines us on the comfortable in complacency when must be heard. face today, how to promote equality and justice, oppose freedom and human
end conflicts and secretaryian war, these things easy answers. but there were no easy answers front of that child born in world war i. mandela reminds us that it always seems impossible until done. south africa shows that it's true. south africa shows we can change world can choose a defined not by our differences but our common hope. a world defined by eace and justice and opportunity. we will never see the likes of mandela again. the people ay that
f africa and the young people around the world, you too can life work your own. a r 30 years ago while still student, i learned of nelson the struggles taking place in this beautiful land. stirred something in me. my oke me up to responsibilities to others and it set me on a me here hat finds today. while i will always fall short example, he makes me want to be a better man. inside s to what's best of me. is r this great liberator
laid to rest and when we return villages and and routine, let us search for his strength. for his largeness inside of omewhere ourselves. hen the night grows dark, when injustice weighs heavy on our and when our best laid plans seem beyond reach, let us the words ndela and that brought him comfort within of his cell, "it the rs not how straight gate how charged the punishment, scroll, i am the master of my faith. my soul ".ptain of
mandela and residents and the people of south africa to whom to convey my condolences for the loss of nelson mandela. ladies and gentlemen, heads of government, dear i bring you hear today, the feelings of deep sorrow as government and people of brazil and i'm sure of all south america for the of this great mandela.elson
south african people as a whole not e a paradigm a-model only for this continent but for justice,e who fight for freedom and equality. mandela defeated by and the south african people was elaborate and cruel form of social and political inequality of modern times. this great leader had his eyes focused on the future of his of his people and of all africa.
we have travelled from different parts of the world together here the passing of nelson mandela, the founding south nt of the new africa. here on behalf of the china and public of the chinese government and eople, i wish to express deep condolences and pay high tribute figure born on the african continent whose bright smile we remember fondly.
mr. mandela was the pride of the african people for all his life he had strived for the iberation of african nations, championed the dignity of the endeavor for and countries f africa's to the world. he's dedicated his entire life to the development and progress of africa. > mr. mandela was a fan of the chinese people and household name in china as one of the fathers of
china's/south africa relations himself to the riendship and china/africa corporation with great passion. the chinese people will always the meme riff his contribution. friendship and relations. [speaking in native tongue] [speaking in native tongue] >> we are deeply saddened by the friend.such a great glad to me time we are
while the living must move on with their lives. way to remember and to commemorate mr. mandela is to legacy and d his spirit. we believe that under the and the p of president government of south africa the people will continue to make big strides orward along the path of national rejuvenation and development. hina continues to work with south africa to deepen the partnership and bring benefits the two people and make positive contributions to the peace and of world development. finally i'd like to say, the man has left, but mmandela's heart and spirit will live
independence. he was the symbol of human rights and freedom. the people of south africa for humanity as a whole. life and ebrate his work and fulfillment and ideals he sacrificed. ur brothers and sisters of the strength and common struggle against we say let us continue stand together for our people principals of
we are gathered here today. it is with the deepest sorrow that i on behalf of the the people of african n the south nation in paying homage -- >> i need to stop you. there's a band up there that i know that you are very enthusiastic. to play your music a upon later when i call you to play. please put your instruments down now.
you will play your wonderful music in a little while. good music.ou play please be patient with us. we only have three more speakers nd i know that we are all in celebrating mood. we want celebrate mandeva's life. music down. let the president of india continue, please. thank you. >> it is with the deepest everence that i behalf of the government of india and people join this nation in beloved omage to their
nationprinciples of our hi fought for. in the air of judgment, prosecution, and oppression, nelson mandela continued his nonviolent struggle with dignity and pride. his commitment to his kind of -- against injustices. his magnanimity remind us in india of the revolutionary methods of mahatma condi. it was
therefore -- gandhi. it was an honor of the indians to confer on mandela our highest when he visited india in 1990. madiba received an unprecedented in delhi and calcutta. in 1995, when he visited india post- first president of africa, heouth said it was a homecoming, a pilgrimage. africa with south
struggle.reedom he was a budding law you're in south africa -- law you're in south africa before he took up in india his famous clothes. the six principles that madiba identified as the fundamental policies of the new south africa -- equal human rights, democracy, respect for law, world peace, nonviolent means, and economic cooperation in an independent world are the same principles that the founding fathers of free india have enshrined in our own policies.
madiba often acknowledged the anduence of mahatma gandhi the former prime minister nehru. then that we in india have great sentiment to a people of this great country, south africa. we stand by you in your hour of bereavement, and we share your sense of loss today. we have no doubt that the world the historyed by of madiba one of the most influential politicians of our century. he gave us the true meaning of forgiveness and reconciliation and spurred south africa onto
the project of building a truly great nation. thank you, ladies and gentlemen. [applause] >> thank you very much, mr. president. get ans, we now will island, and a tiny i than the people who liberated us -- a tiny island of the people who liberated us. the people of cuba. we will now receive a speech castro, who isul now coming to talk to us. welcome.
>> mandela has set out an insurmountable example to latin america and the care being, which are currently moving toward unity and integration for the benefit of their people. on the baseless of respectful diversey and convinced that this is only through dialogue and differences can be resolved in a civilized relationship that will be established tween those who think differently. spanish]ing in
us,s mandela's like teaches all the concerted efforts of all nations will compare humanity to respond to the enormous ourlenges that threatens very existence. spanish]ing in >> cuba, a country board and the struggle for independence, and the abolition of slavery, and whose children has african blood
in their veins, has had the privilege of fighting and building alongside the african nations. spanish]ing in >> we shall never forget mandela's moving homage to our common struggle went on the occasion of his visit to our country on july 26, >> 1991, he the cubani quote, " people have a special place in the hearts of the people of africa." spanish]ing in
>> i remember at this moment his font a fashion with fidel castro, a symbol of the relations between africans and cube is. cubans. he said nelson mandela will not renouncinghout ever his ideas. he will go down in history because he was capable of cleaning up his soul from this poison that such an affair -- an unfair punishment has brought to bear, and for his generosity and wisdom, which at the time of victory allowed him to lead with linkshallenges, his self and baroque -- his selfless and her people, knowing that south africa would not be built on the hatred and vengeance.
spanish]ing in >> honor and glory forever to the great nelson mandela and to the heroic people of south africa. spanish]ing in >> thank you. [applause] ♪ >> thank you, president castro. for all the support to the help that we continue get from the people of cuba during our years of struggle and ies continue to be joined at the hip in the area of development in a number of ways,
his excellency prime minister from australia, his excellency and the crown prince from norway is here, his fromlently president georgia is here. and his excellency, acting argentina.rom friends and visitors, it now request theasure to president of the republic of zuma, toica, jacob ine forward and address us paying tribute to our departed leader nelson mandela.
the abathembu clan, excellencies, heads of state and government, excellencies, former heads of state and government, deputy presidents and representatives of governments, heads of international organisations in all regions of the world, your majesties, your royal highnessess, traditional leaders, religious leaders, the leadership of the anc and alliance partners, leaders of fraternal political organisations in africa and
abroad, representatives of political parties, activists of the former anti- apartheid movement, the diplomatic corps, eminent persons, friends of south africa from all over the world, fellow south africans, sanibonani! good day! [applause] molweni! [applause] dumelang! [applause] south africans sing a popular freedom song about former president nelson mandela. we sing that he is one of a kind, that there is no one quite like him. nelson mandela, nelson mandela,
akekho ofana naye. [applause] the song is one of the most accurate descriptions of this global icon who is the founding president of a free and democratic south africa and also the former president of the oldest liberation movement in the continent, the anc. [applause] his passing has marked an unprecedented outpouring of grief across the world. yet, it is grief, tinged with admiration and celebration. everyone has had a mandela
moment, when this world icon has touched their lives. let us begin, therefore, by thanking all the heads of state and government, international delegations present here today. we also extend our deepest gratitude for the messages of condolences that we continue to receive. the mandela family, the south african people, and the african continent as a whole, feel stronger today, because we are being comforted by millions throughout the world.
dear south africans, that we are madiba's compatriots and have lived during his time is a cause for a great celebration and enormous pride. never before has our country celebrated a life as we are doing with that of madiba. we do not call madiba the father of our rainbow nation merely for political correctness and relevance. we do so because he laid a firm foundation for the south africa of our dreams -- one that is united, non-racial, non-sexist,
democratic, and prosperous. we do so because madiba was a courageous leader. courageous leaders are able to abandon their narrow concerns for bigger and all-embracing dreams, even if those dreams come at a huge cost. madiba embodied this trait. he was a fearless freedom fighter who refused to allow the brutality of the apartheid state to stand in the way of the struggle for the liberation of his people. being a lawyer, he understood the possible consequences of his
actions. but he also knew that no unjust system could last forever. he said at an anc youth league conference in 1951, and i quote, "true, the struggle will be a bitter one. leaders will be deported, imprisoned, and even shot. the government will terrorize the people and their leaders in an effort to halt the forward march. ordinary forms of organization will be rendered impossible, but the spirit of the people cannot be crushed ntil full victory is
won." this struggle became madiba's life. he was at the forefront of the radical change in the anc in the 1940's, advancing the long walk to freedom. he became a volunteer in chief during the defiance campaign in the early 1950's and became the first commander in chief of the anc's armed wing, umkhonto we sizwe, in the early 1960's. he paid dearly for his beliefs and actions through imprisonment. he stated in 1962,
"i was made by the law a criminal, not because of what i had done, but because of what i stood for, because of what i thought, because of my conscience." arrested and sentenced to life imprisonment during the rivonia trial later in 1964, he never lost his fighting spirit. for 27 years, the south african people spoke about him in hushed tones, out of fear. in fact, if the apartheid government had its way, they would have been banned even from thinking about madiba. but the powerful name of nelson
mandela lived on. he continued to inspire our people every single day, from inside prison walls. he demonstrated unique leadership in starting negotiations with the enemy whilst in prison. he also negotiated for the release of his fellow political prisoners first before his own release. his release from victor verster prison on the 11th of february, 1990, was one of the most remarkable and moving moments in world history. the world came to a standstill
watching this tall, imposing figure walking out into a world he had left behind 27 years before. the enormous emotions and feelings we felt on that day are difficult to express in human language. a downtrodden people who had been dehumanized and made to feel like pariahs in the land of their birth suddenly saw signs that freedom would be attained in their lifetime. south africa needed a leader like madiba to help us through a difficult transition from apartheid to a free democratic society.
in the bumpy road to our historic first free and fair elections, there are many times that he brought our nation back from the brink of catastrophe. the massacre at boipatong in 1992 and the killing of the popular leader of our people, chris hani in 1993, are some of the occasions when our country faltered in its long walk to freedom, when we stared into the heart of darkness. it is at these times that madiba restored a sense of calm and purpose and brought us back on
the road to freedom. south africa's first democratic elections were largely peaceful because of this leadership that he displayed. indeed, there is no one like madiba. he was one of a kind. today, on international human rights day, we celebrate madiba the man of peace. today is the 20th anniversary of his being awarded the nobel peace prize on the 10th of december, 1993. this freedom fighter had always stated that the anc had resorted
to arms because of the intransigence of the apartheid regime which responded with violence, bannings, and detentions to simple demands for equal citizenship, human rights, and justice. to him, for south africa to attain peace, the armed struggle was inevitable, but it was a means to an end but not an end in itself. madiba's love for peace was also evident in the work he did in
the continent. the people of burundi enjoy peace and democracy today because of the seeds of peace planted by madiba. following the historic national elections on 27 april 1994, an unprecedented number of heads of state and government and eminent persons from around the world descended upon our shores for madiba's inauguration as the first president of a free and democratic south africa. today, the whole world is standing still again to pay tribute to this greatest son of south africa and africa. fellow mourners, there is no one like madiba, he was one of a kind.
the world speaks fondly of madiba's promotion of unity, reconciliation, and non- racialism during his presidency. he had declared as follows during trial in 1964, "the anc has spent half a century fighting against racism. when it triumphs it will not change that policy." thus his promotion of non- racialism and reconciliation during his tenure as president of the republic was not surprising.
compatriots and friends, speaking at the adoption of a new constitution of the republic adopted in 1996, madiba outlined the vision of the new society. he said, "let us give practical recognition to the injustices of the past by building a future based on equality and social justice. let us nurture our national unity by recognizing, with respect and joy, the languages, cultures, and religions of south africa in all their diversity. let tolerance for one another's views create the peaceful conditions which give space for
the best in all of us to find expression and to flourish. above all, let us work together in striving to banish homelessness, illiteracy, hunger, and disease." with the magnitude of challenges facing the young south africa in mind, madiba set about uniting the nation. he carefully managed the anger and frustrations of both the oppressors and the oppressed, and reminded us of our common humanity that transcended racial boundaries. he also managed both the fears
of the minority and the high expectations and impatience of the majority. he told us that the promises of democracy would not be met overnight and that the fears of the few would not be allowed to derail the newly won freedom. we all agreed with him, as madiba never hesitated to speak his mind when it was necessary to do so, regardless of how uncomfortable the words may be to recipients. many leaders, some of whom are
present here, have experienced his sharp tongue. realizing the power of sport to conquer prejudice, former president mandela embraced south africa's 1995 rugby world cup ambitions, donning the springbok jersey at a time when it was much-maligned by the majority of the population. this would be a hallmark of his presidency. our sports teams yearned for the madiba magic that his visit would bring each time they faced formidable opponents. beyond promoting reconciliation, madiba also laid a firm
foundation for transformation as well as reconstruction and reconciliation and development. he knew that reconciliation without transformation and reconstruction, would be meaningless. under his leadership, the new democratically elected government focused on addressing historical injustices and created new institutions to facilitate the building of a democratic society based on the principles of non-racialism and non-sexism. close to 800 racist apartheid laws were removed from the statute books in the first 10 years of democracy.
the dismantling of the legal framework of apartheid and transformation of many state institutions led to the visible improvement of the socio- economic conditions of millions of people. thus, madiba laid a foundation for a better life for all, which was the rallying cry of his presidency. madiba also laid the foundation for our country's now successful fight against one of the greatest scourges of our time, that of hiv and aids, while still in office and during his retirement.
the global 4 666 4 campaign gave birth to mandela day, a global call to action, mobilizing people to spend at least 67 minutes helping those in need. in november 2009, the united nations general assembly declared the 18th of july as nelson mandela international day. each year on the 18th of july, the world comes together to celebrate mandela day, recognising madiba's selfless sacrifice in betterment of others. indeed, madiba was one of a kind.
sikhumbula iqhawe elalizimisele ngisho nokufa imbala, ukuze abantu abamnyama bathole inkululeko. sikhumbula iqhawe elalwela ukuthi abantu baseningizimu africa baphile ngentokozo ezweni elingenakho ukwesaba, elingenanhlupheko nalapho abantu belingana bonke khona. yingakho nje sithi akekho ofana no-tata umadiba.
compatriots and friends, while saying madiba was one of a kind, we also remember that he believed in collective leadership and that he never wanted to be viewed as a messiah or a saint. he emphasised that all his achievements were derived from working with the anc collective, from whom in his own words, were men and women who were more capable than he was. thus, the south africa that you see today is a reflection of madiba and many others like him, who sacrificed their lives for a free nation.
we thus remain truly grateful to his peers, walter sisulu, oliver reginald tambo, govan mbeki, raymond mhlaba, dorothy nyembe, florence mophosho, and countless others who left indelible marks in the history of our struggle. compatriots and friends, today madiba is no more. he leaves behind a nation that loves him dearly. he leaves a continent that is truly proud to call him an african. he leaves the people of the world who embraced him as their beloved icon.
most importantly, he leaves behind a deeply entrenched legacy of freedom, human rights and democracy in our country. in his honour we commit ourselves to continue building a nation based on the democratic values of human dignity, equality, and freedom. united in our diversity, we will continue working to build a nation free of poverty, hunger, homelessness, and inequality. as the african continent, led by the african union, we will continue working to fulfil his desire for a better africa and a
more just, peaceful, and equitable world. tomorrow, our people will accompany madiba on his last journey to the seat of government, the union buildings in pretoria, where his body will lie in state for three days. i have the honor today to announce that the union buildings amphitheatre, where madiba was inaugurated as president in 1994 and where his body will lie in state, will, with effect from today, be called the nelson mandela
amphitheatre. [applause] this is a fitting tribute to a man who transformed the union buildings from a symbol of racism and repression to one of peace, unity, democracy, and progress. compatriots, comrades, and friends, we extend yet again our deepest condolences to mama graca machel, mama winnie madikizela- mandela, the children, grandchildren, great- grandchildren, and the entire extended family.
language]in foreign has run a madiba, good race. he declared in his own words in 1994. he said, "death is something inevitable. when a man has done what he considers to be his duty to his people and his country, he can rest in peace. i believe i have made that effort, and that is, therefore, why i will sleep for eternity."
language]i thank you. [speaking in foreign lanuage] rest in peace among our father and hero. thank you very much. reports a budget agreement could be reached. patty murray are hopeful striking an agreement as early as this afternoon. this morning, open quote -- "washington journal" got a report. host: thank you for joining us.
when are we expecting to hear the details of this budget deal? > guest: this morning the budget chairs are planning to meet. by all accounts they are close. the real question going forward if the deal will be able to pass. we have seen it over and order -- over in last years that any kind of agreement to get to the house of representatives. paul ryan has the most individual sway, but there is already unrest about a package that has spending for the next year, because it will include a higher level of spending from the current level, as well as higher revenues through fees and the like. that is going to be interesting
to watch. if they come up with an agreement, candy get through the house. ast: that is expected to be two-year deal? guest: how much the government can spend over the next few years and it will change the rules of how it is spent. this would be giving agencies be the alike the ability to more flexible on how they spend that money. there are some sticking points. a big question is what to do about unemployment insurance, which is going to expire at the end of this year. that has been a priority for democrats to put in, otherwise, there is not a vehicle to make sure it gets through congress. republicans have been opposing now. it is not clear that that will get included. host: talking about $26 billion
for the unemployment benefits extension. is there any word as to where that money would come from? guest: they have not come up with the specifics or have not released them. that is not an issue that is going to be included in this package. if it is not included, it will be extremely hard for democrats to get it through. $26 billion is a hard number to offset. there are not many things that move through this congress, if you do not jump on the train, it is not sure when the next one is coming. host: shane, thank you for getting up with us on "washington journal." thank you. train station in
plains, georgia. off andphones going letters going in and out of the area, and rosalynn was here running the campaign from this building. this is where rosalynn carter helps organize her brigade. how hean off shshoot of had run for governor, how he was spreading the word. it was a message so defective that it helped him get elected to the presidency. firstch the program on or seesalynn carter, it on saturday, and on monday we encoregin our presentation of "first ladies." >> it is a rare constant in american political life, if you look at congress and 1901, less
than two percent of the members came from working-class backgrounds, got into politics, and eventually wound up in congress. /-forward to the present day, the average member of congress doing servicen 2% industry jobs. this is one thing that has not changed, you know, lots of different aspects of the political aspect. broadcast television, the rise of news, and while this is happening, one of the constants during the last hundred years or so is that working class people are not getting elected to political office. >> does it if there is a socioeconomic asperity between officials and the citizens they represent? the white-collar government, sunday night at 9:00 p.m..
russians for three hours beginning at noon eastern. online for december's book tv book club, we want to know what your favorite books were in 2013. join other readers to discuss thisotable books published year. enter the chat room. >> u.s. house is about to meet thisorning our speeches on tuesday. a time set aside for speeches on any topic. legislative work will get underway at 2:00 p.m. eastern. nevers will consider -- will consider three bills. the house is considering a number of minor bills while waiting for negotiations to be completed on the budget, the farm bill, and a number of other issues that need to be resolved.
the speaker: the house will be in order. 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 ebate. 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 but in to five minutes, no event shall debate continue eyond 1:50 p.m. today. the chair recognizes the gentleman from massachusetts, mr. mcgovern, for five minutes. mr. mcgovern: i ask unanimous consent to revise and extend my remarks. the speaker: without objection. mr. mcgovern: mr. speaker, today, december 10, is international human rights day. 65 years ago in 1948, the first 58 members of the united nations, fresh from the wounds and memories of world war ii,
adopted the universal declaration of human rights. they put aside profound disagreements about their political, economic and social ideologies, their cultural and religious differences. together they created a document remarkable for its breath of human rights protections and outlined a bold vision with the world built on a premise of all human beings are born free and equal in dignity and rights. it articulated man kinds' greatest aspirations, to respect and protect the dignity of every person, regardless of his or her race, religious beliefs or social standing. it became the cornerstone for developing international standards, for the protection of human rights and pepped build legislative action here in congress. i'm proud to be the co-chair of the tom lantos human rights commission, dedicated to promoting human rights and educating our congressional colleagues on the importance of standing up for human rights. through hearings and initiatives, we have focused on
some of the most critical human rights challenges around the world. this year we began the defending freedoms project, where members of congress can adopt prisoners of conscience. i congratulate those members who have adopted prisoners and advocated for their release and i invite all my colleagues to join the commission and the defending freedoms project. the u.s. congress has a long history of standing up for the disenfranchised and the abused. it has stood on the side of immigrants and championed the rights of whose governments prevented them to emigrate. it has worked on behalf of the disappeared in chile and the gulags of the former soviet unions. it has stood up for journalists and other human rights defenders. i hope future congresses will not abandon that history but will continue to stand up for the rights of the disenfranchised, not just abroad but here at home. along with my colleague, frank be part of oud to the rule of law accountability act, which congress approved
last year and the president signed last year. it is for those speaking out against truths and justice in russia. it freezes the assets of some of russia's gross violators of human rights and affirms our commitment to safeguarding human rights and fighting impunity, regardless of such transgressions occur. in an interconnected world, the universal declaration challenges us to place our commitment to human rights firmly and uncompromisingly at the center of our foreign policy. too often we fail this test. for example, despite china's relentless crackdown on the tibetan people, we continue business as usual with china. the toll of this oppression on human dignity is seen in 119 south -- -- an appeal to the world for action. the universal declaration also demands that we press our friends and allies when they're responsible for human rights abuses. in bahrain, since 2011, -- since the 2011 uprising, we've
seen reports of tortture, multiple reports of confessions and the persecution of medical personnel. peaceful human rights leaders have been arbitrarily jailed. instead of leveraging our good relations with bahrain to achieve greater respect for human rights, we have chosen to renew military sales and abandon our past demands for increased human rights protections. finally, international human rights day reminds us to recommit to respecting human rights in our own nation. we must eliminate torture in all our policies. we must work harder to prevent human trafficking on our own soil and we must protect and advance such basic rights as access to adequate food, a fundamental human right under article 25 of the universal declaration. 48 million americans, including 16 million children don't have enough to eat in this country. yet, in september we saw devastating cuts to our snap program with maybe even more on the way in the final version of the farm bill. the universal declaration and our own american values demand
that we do better. with the passing of one of the greatest champions of human rights, nelson mandela, i'd like to close with words he offered in this very chamber to a joint meeting of congress in 1990. to deny any person their human rights is to challenge their very humanity. to impose on them a retched life of hunger and depper vation is to dehumanize them, end quote. as we remember nelson mandela, let us remember the principles enshrined in the human declaration and respect, protect and promote the human dignity of every person so that we might achieve a more peaceful, just and secure world. i yield back. the speaker pro tempore: the gentleman yields back. the chair recognizes the gentleman from oklahoma, mr. bridenstine, for five minutes. mr. speaker, e: pat grant passed away on november 26, 2013. whether you called her colonel,
attorney or champ, pat grant was one of the most extraordinary women you would ever hope to meet. she dominated women's golf in oklahoma during the 1930's and 1940's. in addition to her golf prowess, grant served her country for 22 years in the united states army. after the army, grant practiced law for 30 years. it was said of grant, quote, she was not only the perfect example of an fleet, she was the type of american our country needs to look up to. people started noticing grant when she won the oklahoma state high school golf championship as a 13-year-old freshman at cushing high school. she would win it three times before graduating in 1938. then, it it was on to oklahoma baptist university in shani. there was no golf -- shawnee. there was no golf team, but she was given a scholarship if she would teach golf to other athletes. she graduated from o.b.u. in 1942 and was the first woman to be inducted into the o.b.u.
athletic hall of palm. e won the oklahoma women state championship. at indian hills country club in tulsa, oklahoma, grant won the state championship again. her third straight championship came at southern hills country club in tulsa, oklahoma. during that championship she set a new course record for women at southern hills and won the championship match 9-8. she held onto the trophy for the fourth straight year with 7-6 win in shawnee. grant became known for hitting long, booming drives, some as long as 250 yards. it was rumored that sometimes she even talked to her golf ball. there was no state championship in 1943, 1944, 1945 because of world war ii. but when play resumed in 1946, grant won the state amateur championship again. with that victory, grant became
the only person in oklahoma history to win the straight championship five years in a row. that record still stands today. when world war ii broke out, grant put aside her ambition of becoming a professional golfer so she could serve her country. it seemed like the right thing to do, she said. we would -- we were at war and i didn't want to sit around here doing nothing, she said. in her career in the army was as illustrious as her of accomplishments on the golf course. grant and her sister, mary margaret, enlisted in the army in 1942. grant went into the women's army corps and mary enlisted in the army nurse corps. grant was commissioned as a lieutenant in april, 1943. while in the military, grant held duty assignments all over the globe, including assisting the chief legal counsel during the nuremberg trials. grant served as the personal escort to eleanor roosevelt when the former first lady toured germany in 1948. grant received 23 letters of commndation while in the army
and won golf tournaments all over the world. it was good publicity for the army for me to be playing in all these golf tournaments, grant said. it was great for me because the army was paying my way. that's what you call a win-win, she said. after 23 years of active duty, she retired with the rank of lieutenant colonel. she was only of 26 women who had that rank. she landed? state of the union to earn a law degree in 1966. just as she protected her country, grant fought for rights and just -- justice for her family -- through her family law practice. she was granted woman of the year and professional women's clubs in 1972. retirement came for good in 1995. grant moved to cortez, colorado. at the age of 90, she was still active and full of life. grant flew an ultra light aircraft every saturday morning when weather permitted. it's been a good trip, grant
recently said. god has chosen a life of adventure for me. i wouldn't trade it. grant loved god and she loved her neighbor and spent her life dedicated to family, friends and country. she was inducted into the women's oklahoma golf hall of fame in april of 2010. she passed away on november 26, 2013, at the age of 90. she was a great role model for all americans. mr. speaker, i yield back. the speaker pro tempore: the gentleman yields back. the chair recognizes the gentlewoman from new york, ms. meng, for five minutes. ms. meng: thank you, mr. speaker. i rise today in support of my legislation, the flushing study act, h.r. 3222. this bill directs the secretary of the interior to conduct a special resource study of the local resources. the -- it is an important part of my local history and i'd
like to take a moment to discuss its origins on our country. the quakers of the mid 17th century were prohibited from practicinger that religion which includes part of what is now new york state. in response, a group of local activists wrote a declaration against religious persecution. although 356 years old, its intent still shines brightly in the ideals embraces today. in 1657, 30 english citizens stood against oppression and asserted the rights of quakers and our religious minorities to practice their religion. they wrote, quote, we desire not to judge least we be judged, condemn least we be condemned but let man stand or fall to his own master. it was against judging and condemning others for what they
believed. it was met with great opposition from the local government in what is known today as flushing queens. one of the greatest and most outspoken proponents of religious freedom at the time was an english immigrant named john bown. at great risk to himself, he invited the quakers to hold religious services in his own home. he was arrested for doing so, fined and then banished to his homeland to holland for his crimes. to in holland, john went the dutch west india company to go home. his pleas sprepped. because of his strong convictions for religious freedom, the company demand that had religious persecution end in the colony. his story of personal courage to not -- should not be forgotten. our nation was founded on the ideals that we foster a lerant society, the same thing he practiced. his home, which serves as a
relidge -- symbol of religious freedom to so many, was converted into a museum in 1947 and listed on the national registry of historic places in 1977. it is important that we continue to preserve and understand the historical significance this, strengthening its ties to the queens community and beyond. to help achieve this goal, i introduced the study act which will help the queens community connect to its rich past and possibly new and exciting ways. the bown house could benefit from further federal study and other associated locations, such as the quaker meeting house should be considered for registry. the story is not for new yorkers alone. . it is a value and oiler first amendment. i'm proud to represent a district that tended to the early roots to religious freedom
that have ground into an unquestionable american right. i hope the act of the december 27 anniversary will help us all remember the courage of john brown and the passion for religious frem held by the authors. thank you, mr. speaker. i yield back. the speaker pro tempore: the gentlewoman yields back. the chair now recognizes the gentleman from minnesota, mr. paulsen, for five minutes. mr. paulsen: i ask unanimous consent to revise and extend my remarks. the speaker pro tempore: without objection. mr. paulsen: mr. speaker, recently the d.c. circuit court ruled in favor of america's energy ratepayers. for more than 30 years the department of energy has assessed a special tax and assessment on my constituents and the residents of 40 other states around the country who received their electricity from nuclear power. minnesotans have paid over $400 million a loan. the reason for this tax? to pay for the disposal of used fuels generate interested nuclear energy. to date the total amount collected is more than $24 billion, but little of that money has even been spent. since 1987, the law of the land
remains that yucca mountain is the site for geelogical storage of nuclear spent fuel. unfortunately for ratepayers. partisanship and bickering in washington has nearly halted the program from moving forward. in classic washington fashion, even with all of this inaction, the taxes continued to be assessed and the moneys have continued to be collected. fortunately now this recent court action will bring an end to this. but just for now. i have long been an advocate of stopping these payments. the government is not doing what it promised to do with used fuel, yet millions of ratepayers were still being forced to foot the bill. minnesotans and americans should not be taxed for a service the government is not providing. mr. speaker, we should be expanding the development of nuclear energy. it's safe, clean, and it's renewable. storing these used fuels is a critical piece of that effort, and we need a permanent solution, whether it's at yucca mountain or somewhere else. it is reasonable and fair that if the administration is going
to continue to drag its feet on a permanent storage site as they have for several years now, then ratepayers and taxpayers should not be forced to fund inaction. so, mr. speaker, i applaud the court's decision to protect minnesota ratepayers in stopping these payments, and in addition it is time to get serious about the future of nuclear energy and moving forward with safe and proper storage facilities for the waste. i yield back. the speaker pro tempore: the gentleman yields back. the chair now recognizes the gentleman from new york, mr. tonko, for five minutes. mr. tonko: i ask unanimous consent to address the house for five minutes. revise and extend. the speaker pro tempore: without objection, so ordered. mr. tonko: thank you, mr. speaker. here we go again. our to-do list continues to pile up and republican house leadership of this legislative body, if we can even use words like leadership and legislative to describe the house anymore, has officially cemented the first session of the 113th congress as the least productive
of all time. we have not passed a budget. we have not passed the farm bill. have not fixed the voting rights act. or done anything in our charge to make the people's voices heard in their nation's capital. in fact, if recent reports in the d.c. newspapers are any indication, house leadership seems to be more concerned with planning fundraisers in new york city than getting anything done here in washington, d.c. the leadership of the people's house has continued to govern by sound bites and pass messaging bills that go nowhere. even shutting down the government for more than two weeks in the process. a painful exercise and expensive exercise. but we are about to call it a year and skip town with so much left undone. our unemployment or employment rate is at its lowest point in five years. but imagine how much lower it would be today if we would work together and focus on jobs instead of attempting to repeal the affordable care act since
2011. rolling back sequestration and replacing it with a responsible budget that cuts where we can and invests where we must. passing comprehensive immigration reform to expand the american dream to our friends and neighbors who want to so desperately contribute to the greatest country on the planet. updating the voting rights act so that everyone is able to fulfill their basic human right and duty of going to the polls. increasing the minimum wage, to restore dignity to those who have been forced to work two and sometimes three jobs simply to put food on the table. passing a farm bill, something that needs to be done on -- as a routine. and empowering our nation's family farms to ensure that our national food supply remains secure and remains plentiful. focusing on the clear and present danger that climate change has brought to the midwest and to our shores along the gulf of mexico and the atlantic coast. i could go on and on but i only have five minutes.
tax reform, certainly commonsense gun reform like expanding background checks, the fact is there are about 10 to 15 pieces of major legislation that would improve our country and the quality of life for americans of every race, orientation, political party, and socioeconomic status. but they are not being pushed by this house. almost all of these bills have given us simple, up or down vote would pass with a bipartisan majority. but house leadership continues to act in the interest of the few extremists in their own party instead of doing what is right for our american people. i, like many of my democratic colleagues, have signed on to a resolution introduced by my good friend, luis slaughter, which would prevent congress from adjourning unless the house agrees to a budget by december 13. i urge my colleagues on both sides of the aisle to support this resolution so that we stay in town until we perform at least one of our basic duties before leaving for the holidays.
the american people deserve so much more than what we have given them in the past year. and it is my hope that when we gavel in next year we will do so with a renewed willingness to work together and focus on the top priority for americans, which is indeed putting people back to work. the american public expects and deserves nothing less. with that, mr. speaker, i yield back. the speaker pro tempore: the gentleman yields back. pursuant to sclause 12-a of rule 1, the chair declares the house in recess until 2:00 p.m. today.
depends upon his. cheers and applause] >> mandela demonstrated that action that ideas are not enough. no matter how right, they must also be in the law and institution. he was practical. testing his beliefs against the hard surface of circumstance and history. he was unyielding which is why .e sought unconventional relief as he showed in painstaking negotiation, the trantser if of power and draft new law, he was not afraid to compromise for the sake of the larger good. and because he was not only a leader of the movement but a
skillful politician, the constitution that emerged was worthy of its multiracial democracy. showing his vision of love that protect minority wells majority rights. and the precious freedom of every south african. finally, mandela understood the ties that bind the human spirit. >> you can see the entire nelson mandela memorial tonight beginning at 8:00 eastern. before speaking president obama shook hands with raul castro as he made his way down the line of world speakers gathered to honor the anti-apartheid leader. joining president obama on the 16-hour trip from washington, d.c., for the ceremony from first lady michelle obama, former president george w. bush and his wife laura, and former secretary of state hillary clinton. former presidents bill clinton and jimmy carter also attended the service.
live now on political political as the house energy subcommittee is about to convene a hearing on the state of online gaming. lawmakers will consider a bill to establish a program for licensing internet poker nationwide. the bill was introduced to congress following the states of nevada, delaware, and new jersey passing laws to legalize online gambling within their borders. subcommittee is also expected to discuss the interstate wire act which prohibits the use of wire communications for the interstate facilitation or transfers of wages. this hearing about to get under way. we'll have live coverage when it starts here on c-span. knee
>> the who is specsed to adjourn for the rest of the year on friday, congress is spending this week trying to move several key pieces of legislation and find agreement on a new budget deal. joining us at the able to provide his take is congressman john garamendi, democrat from california. congressman, i appreciate you coming on. host: you are a member of the armed services committee. we talked this morning about the deal that was announced yesterday on the defense authorization bill. what's your take? guest: got to get it done. we don't have a choice. we have soldiers in the field. we've got very, very important projects that have to be done. and we can't dither. we have to get this thing done. slim down some of the things that many of us would like to see in it are not going to be in it, but the essential pieces are there. get it done. host: that legislation according to the "washington times," $632st8 billion from the defense budget, includes $80 million for the ongoing overseas operations
in afghanistan and elsewhere. and includes provisions aimed at curbing sexual assault and loosen some of the restrictions on transferring prisoners to foreign countries from the detention facility in guantanamo bay, cuba. you said just now it doesn't include some things. what was left out of this bill? guest: some of the things that are left in it are troublesome to me. $80 billion for afghanistan? when we can't build the levees to protect our own cities here in the united states? we have some questions, i have questions about this particular piece of legislation. >> opening statement. i want to introduce and thank our witnesses for being here. so i'll go down the list of our witnesses. mr. freeman, jeff freeman, president and chief executive officer, american gaming association. then mr. andrew obud, vice president of government affairs in community development, las vegas sands corporation. john papyus, executive director of poker players alliance.
les burntel, stop predatory gamble. rt eggert, professor of law, chapman university. ph.d., rachel volberg, i got you two switched, associate professor, school of public health and health sciences at the university of massachusetts amherst. i appreciate you being here today. in nebraska we wouldn't even consider canceling a hearing for this little brief flurry that they have here in d.c., or chicago. my gosh. so we are forging ahead and i appreciate the fact that all of our witnesses stayed true. of course you guys probably got here before the panic ensued anyway. we appreciate you sticking tight with us. we'll start, good morning.
and welcome all the people here in attendance today. we will be reviewing h.r. 2666, the internet poker freedom act sponsored by my colleague on the committee, mr. joe barton. this legislation addresses a timely issue, the legality of online gaming specifically pertaining to internet poker. today's hearing title aptly describes why we are here. i'm very interested in the state of online gaming in the united states and think the issue is ripe for congress to conduct oversight of this matter. several different factors have led to an environment in the u.s. where the status of online gaming is murky at best. one, a recent d.o.j. opinion that reinterpreted the wire act opened the door for online gaming except for sports betting, to be hosted on an intrastate basis. this has led to a patchwork of state laws with seven states moving to outlaw gaming while
others have authorized it in different forms. the most expansive being so far, new jersey, which has authorized multiple forms of internet gambling. nevada is moving in that same direction. in addition to the patchwork of state laws, multinational patchwork exists as well, according to a white paper by the american gaming association, over 80 countries have chosen to legalize internet gaming to some extent. while the u.s. is not explicitly legalized it, our citizens still account for about 15% of the global revenues to the roughly 2,700 websites which host online gaming. this means that americans are patronizing these offshore websites to the tune of over $1 billion a year. and as if that's not confusing enough, as we will hear today, the american gaming industry also does not seem to be in agreement on a clear path forward for the future of online gaming domestically.
the issues are very concerning to me. while unpettered online gaming here in the u.s. is surely not the ideal, absent a clear mandate from congress we risk exposing our constituents who in an environment of a race to the bottom which could present itself. it's my hope that these hearings, such as the one, will shed light on what logical steps congress can take to address this growing dilemma. i understand and agree congress should not trample on the rights of states, i believe it is critical we gain an understanding for the integrity of the different state standards, how this affects the citizens of our other states, and what the role of the federal government should be in the future of domestic online gaming. i'm pleased to say we'll be hearing from a balanced panel of experts today and i stress balance because in planning this hearing i want to make sure that we heard from as many sides of this debate and all of its nuances as possible. and i'd like to again thank all
of our witnesses for being here and yield the last two minutes to mr. lance. >> thank you, mr. chairman. the legal gaming industry is a multibillion dollar operation with significant economic impact in the state of new jersey, which i represent here in congress, and of course in the united states. according to the american gaming association, a commercial casino operators reported revenue of $37.3 billion in 2012. in new jersey revenue from legal gaming in 2012 topped $3 billion. recent years the development of mobile technology and the justice department's 2011 legal interpretation of the wire act, have opened the door for states to operate internet gaming within their borders. in november, new jersey became the third state to operate internet gaming, joining nevada and delaware. online gaming in new jersey allows consumers who are present
within the state to have access to the same games he of skill and chance that are offered in atlantic city's casinos. online gaming has the potential to provide much needed revenue to atlantic city and the state of new jersey's budget. a report in our largest newspaper states that internet gambling is expected to produce hundreds of millions if not billions of dollars in revenue annually. since 1978, when gambling began in atlantic city, the gaming industry has been an important part of new jersey's economy, and internet gaming has the potential to reinvigorate the state's industry and secure its financial solvency in the future. at this hearing we'll also examine legislation introduced by my friend and colleague, representative barton of texas, the internet poker freedom act of 2013. this legislation would establish a program for the licensing of internet poker by states and federally recognized indian tribes. i look forward to examining this
legislation and the hearing and testimony from the panel on the state of online gaming. thank you, mr. chairman. >> thank you, mr. vice chairman. now recognize the -- ask unanimous consent to allow mr. heck from the greater las vegas area to join us on the panel today. hearing none, so ordered. now recognize the gentlelady from chicago, the ranking member of the subcommittee, for her five minutes. >> thank you, mr. chairman. i look around i see there are no weather wimps in this room. and i welcome all of you. nd also midwesterns -- mid werners, we don't get it. very happy you're here to give your t this is an important issue that has a significant following and i look forward to hear from our witnesses and gaming from all of your perspectives. the issue of online gambling is incredibly complex and certainly deserving of our attention.
it also is becoming increasingly important as last month new jersey joined nevada and delaware as the only states to offer real money, online casino games. most states are considering -- many states are considering similar action, possibly including my home state of illinois. i understand that some amount of gambling is already occurring online. establishing a stronger federal role might improve oversight, reduce illegal operations, and provide revenues at the federal or state level. i do have serious concerns about expanding online gambling. studies show that low-income workers, minorities, retirees suffer disproportionately from problem gambling. it's important online wagering expansion protections are in place to protect the exploitation of vulnerable populations. that should include limitations on lines of credit rather than real assets.
the government should not be in the business of increasing number of people struggling with gambling addiction. as a lifelong consumer advocate, i also think it's critical if federal legislation is to expand online gambling it does so with consumer protections as a top priority. safeguards must be in place to ensure that consumer data is well protected. that can be accomplished in part by assuring standards are in place to limit the unnecessary collection of consumer information. consumers must be adequately informed of the data being collected about them and the policies regarding the handling of that data. legislation to expand online gambling, high standards of privacy must be maintained for those who choose to engage or not to engage in online gambling. information about frequent bettors or those who have self-identified as problem gamblers to limit their access to online gambling must not be shared or sold without the
consent of that individual. individual consent should not be wrapped up in a complex privacy agreement, but should be clear and transparent to the user. if an expansion of online gambling is allowed, those who choose to play should also have confidence that the game they are playing operated with integrity. it clution and other unfair practices must be kept -- collusion and other unfair practices muts be kept away to maintain fairness for players. again i appreciate the very perspective of our witnesses and i look forward to hearing from them today about the current state of online gambling, where we go from here, and how any future actions can address the many consumer protection concerns that i have raised. i yield back, mr. chairman. i think -- mr. welch, are you interested in remaining time?
i yield back. >> all right. mr. barton, are you now recognized for five minutes. you control the old five minutes. >> thank you, mr. chairman. to my good friend, jan schakowsky, a bot is a computer program that uses artificial intelligence and preprogrammed instructions to play not just poker or games of chance but all kinds of things on the internet. they are not good things in my opinion. that's what a bot is. i want to welcome some former members out in the audience. jon porter of nevada. former chairman of the ag committee from california, i think richard pombo is out there . so we welcome him back to congress. i want to tell the committee, mr. chairman, that god must be for this bill because i got up enis, ning at 4:00 and
texas, outside of dallas, braved icy roads and 20 degree temperatures to get to dfw airport when my good friends at american airlines left exactly on time and god put a 200 miles per hour tailwind behind the plane. i got here an hour early. that tells me that god is for this bill. that's my opinion. mr. chairman, i first want to thank you for holding this hearing, earn chairman upton, and ms. schakowsky and mr. waxman for agreeing to do t i want to thank our witnesses. this is a serious issue that has a lot of ramifications for the country. when i first got elected 30 years ago, there was no such
thing as the internet. you could actually still send a tell gram -- telegram. i told about flying up here on american airlines this morning. members of congress still got two paid roundtrip train tickets to their district. ok. the world was completely different. if you wanted to make a bank deposit, you had to literally go to the bank. if you wanted to go to the doctor you had to literally go to a doctor's office. everything had to be done in person. now we have the internet and iphones and ipads and apps and all these things. just about the only thing you can't do anymore on the internet is play poker. and that is changing. as ms. schakowsky has pointed out, lots of states are eginning to allow intrastate poker and/or other games of
chance. only two states in the union don't allow within their borders some form of gaming. two out of 50. so i think the time has come to recognize that in the internet age we need to regulate and set a level playing field for those of us who would like to play poker online. i don't -- i want to emphasize that the internet poker freedom act, h.r. 2666 is a poker only bill. and for my good friends on the republican side of the aisle, it is a state's rights, user friendly bill. it is an opt out. we start out saying all 50 states are going to allow poker to be played. but if a state doesn't want to do it, it just takes the
vernor of a state to write a letter, maybe even on the back of a postcard, send it to the secretary of commerce, and that state will not allow internet poker within its boundaries. h.r. 2666 has been developed in an openness and transparency. it is a refined product of a similar bill i introduced in the last two congresses. i think it's a good work product. i think it would work. i think it would provide fairness and all the things that several of the other members who have talked about this this morning support. it's not a perfect bill, and obviously the purpose of this hearing will be to see where it needs to be improved. there are some that talk about the problems of addiction and
gambling to excess. we have taken every recommendation in the bill from the advocates who want to try to prevent such bad behavior. so, mr. chairman, i look forward to the hearing. i do appreciate you holding it. and i will point out that in the last congress a similar hearing in this subcommittee was the most watched hearing of the entire energy and commerce committee in terms of people watching it over the internet. so i'm sure we are going to have a lot of people watching us today. >> i think we will. especially since we are the only hearing. >> that's due to your leadership, mr. chairman. >> timing. under your state's rights i'll have to ask you at some point in time after the hearing if it's all right if a governor could and allowholdhe many,
omaha. >> we'll take, mr. chairman. >> our routine is now completed and now on to business here with our witnesses here. some of you have been here before and you know how it works. you have five minutes to give us your statement. there's a little light down there, green means go. yellow means start wrapping it up. red means i'm going to start tapping the gavel. and go on to the next. then at the end of mr. eggert's testimony, we'll open it up to the questions which each member will have five minutes. with that, mr. freeman, thank you-all again for being here. you are recognized for five minutes. >> thank you, chairman terry and ranking member sha could you skirks members of the committee. it's great to come back before the committee again. i did this several times with the u.s. travel association and
appreciate the opportunity to work with you. this hearing couldn't be more timely. three states have already kicked off their versions of online gaming -- new jersey, nevada, and delaware, demand to play is high, and your intention is critical. i'd like to start by joining the almighty and thanking congressman barton for his leadership on this issue and pragmatic efforts to create a regulated gaming environment. that's certainly what we need more of. there are three points thade' like to make to the committee today. the first is the experience over the past several years has yielded one crystal clear conclusion. that conclusion is the prohibition of online gaming has not and will not work. until this year online gaming, poker, or otherwise has been illegal in every corner of the country, and the justice department has led an aggressive crackdown on offshore operators. the result? last year americans spent nearly $3 billion on illegal offshore gaming sites constituting nearly 10% of the entire worldwide online gaming market.
in other words, resent prohibition attempts have only create add thriving black market. this should come as no surprise to a country where sports betting takes place just about everywhere despite a blanket government prohibition. in fact, it's fair to argue the prohibition has given shady offshore operators the best ally they could imagine. legitimate operators, such as my members, respect the law, have licenses at stake, and stay out of the american market. illegal operators disobey the law and often disregard their own customers. make no mistake, online gaming is here to stay. the government cannot put the internet back into the bottle. the question is, are we going to regulate online gaming or allow the black market to ten to thrive? my second point is the demand for online gaming will only continue to grow. the world over the internet is changing how we live our lives and the face of business. some companies get on the first wave of that change and thrive in the marketplace. other companies like block buster or hollywood video, for
example, refuse to adapt to the needs of their customers and are left in innovation's wake. just two weeks ago in the very first week that online gaming was offered legally in new jersey, more than 50,000 people signed up. last week june perfect research estimated that more than 100 million people will conduct gambling on mobile devices by 2018. the demand is extraordinary and not going away. with this demand and the blossomling black market my final point is there is an important role for the federal government. congress should provide a uniform set of protections for consumers while respecting state's rights to choose what is in their best interest. the a.g.a. supports a strong regulatory regime that insists on player identification, age verification, transparent records of all transactions, geolocation, aggressive tools for responsible gaming, and help for those with gambling disorders. new technologies are proven to detect vulnerable and those who may wish to do us harm. and it is worth noting that as
an industry we are completely aligned on the need to protect vulnerable populations. even as we may disagree on the best means of doing so. the united kingdom, france, belgium, in, denmark, sweden, finland, australia, japan, hong kong, and canada, just to name a few, have all considered the serious issues brought before you today and all have chosen to pursue a regulated market. consumers are protected, national security concerns are addressed, and economic development is realized. in conclusion, let me say that americans will always gamble, offline, online, on whatever forum is invented in the coming years. as countless studies show, more than 95% will do so in a responsible manner. we believe the best protection for consumers and for our country is strong and effective regulation that respects state's rights. we look forward to working with
you and others in congress to build the type of regulatory framework that is important here. thank you for inviting me. i look forward to your questions. >> thank you. now, mr. andy abboud, you are recognized for five minutes. >> thank you, congressman terry, madam ranking member. i have to say this is an honor for me. this is my first time in testifying before congress and i have the unique opportunity to testify before two hometown congressmen. one being my husker friend here, congressman lee terry, and my congressman in las vegas, congressman joe heck. thank you for allowing us to be ere today. i work for the largest gaming company in the world. we have three simple points. internet gambling takes gambling tool far. we would like congress to restore the wire act and we implore congress to shut down the illegal gaming sites out there today. simply a lot of people say it can't be done. congress did it by shutting down
1,24u7bd online pharmacies that were black market pharmacies t can be done. it needs to be done. no provisions in place to do that. the thought of every single one of these becoming a casino should concern all of you. you go into states like florida where we are negotiating for an opportunity to spend $3 billion to $4 billion on an integrated resort, creating tens of thousands of jobs, now the casino centric mentality, which is what the industry moved away from. you have to negotiate each gaming position. can you do 2,000 machines, 100 tables? you have to figure out how you blend into the marketplace so you don't saturate the market, injure the existing infrastructure, so there is just not too much of t now for whatever reason they want to turn every single one of these into a casino with unlimited access, unlimited provision. congressman terry, i'm pretty sure that i have known your
family from the beginning, your father delivered the news on channel 7 when i was growing up, and i know you and i probably never saw our parents' credit card, let alone did we touch it. but the world's changed. children have 100% access to credit cards. they buy their apps with it, and i don't want to speak to the integrity of the intelligence of anyone here on this committee of their ability to understand technology, but if they legalize it, it is going to be the kids that keeps their parents on. there is a point when it goes too far. simply because we can doesn't mean we should. because we can doesn't mean we should. december, 2011, was not the day that the internet became safe. it was the day the wire act was overturned. and rather than my industry rushing to make the marketplace more safe, it has become a rush to the marketplace. without any provisions.
the internet, botz, net botz, all those -- bots, net bots, all those, congresswoman, the internet is more dangerous than ever. but i have a lot of respect for geoff freeman and our exceptors on the strip. we just happen to disagree on this issue. have respect for geoff's predecessor. february, 2012. finally, it is important to remember what the d.o.j. decision really is. it is an opinion of the current justice department, not the law of the land as determined by the supreme court or any other court decision. the opinion is counter to that of four prior administrations that considered this matter. and when president obama ultimately leaves office, the d.o.j. serves under the next president can reverse this opinion. near the end of last year, i had the opportunity to testify on behalf of the commercial gaming industry before the u.s.
house committee on energy and commerce, subcommittee on commerce, manufacturing and trade. i told congress that without a federal framework on online gaming, there will be a patchwork quilt of rules and regulations that while aimed at protecting consumers could have the opposite effect by confusing customers and making it difficult for law enforcement to manage. i believe still in the d.o.j.'s opinion reinforce my concerns. members of the committee, the thought of a 50-state solution is scary. we are imploring on congress to act, to restore the wire act, to conduct a study that the internet can be safe but it's time to stop, don't make a race to the bottom of the marketplace, restore the wire act and protect american consumers. thank you and i look forward to your questions. >> thank you. r. pappas.
>> chairman terry, ranking member schakowsky, and distinguished members of the subcommittee, i would like to thank you for holding this hearing and allowing me to testify. i have the great honor of serving as executive director of the poker players alliance, an organization of 1.2 million american poker enthusiasts. poker players are passionate about the freedom to play this game and i have little doubt that every member of this subcommittee has heard from poker activists in their home states urging congress to enact a sensible federal policy that license and regulates internet poker. it is my hope that the committee will respond by taking up legislation introduced by congressman joe barton, h.r. 2666, the internet poker freedom act. the p.p.a. stands in strong support of congressman barton's bill, and i congratulate the chairman emeritus for his leadership on this issue and the poker player community thanks god that our own our -- that you are on our side. it turns it into a system that is safe for consumers and accountable to regulators and government.
it mandates to protect consumers from fraud, eliminate underage access. mr. barton's bill does not force any state to participate in the federal system and it allows states to implement their own online gaming regulations. this is especially important given that three states -- nevada, delaware, new jersey -- have authorized and are regulating internet poker and internet gaming today. the adoption of regulated internet gaming in the u.s. means that policymakers can no longer consider regulated internet gaming as a theoretical. it is not a theory. it is reality. and it is here today. not only can we reference the current u.s. regulated market, we also have the benefit of learning from europe where it has been regulated to more than 10 years. of course, there are those who advocate for a ban on internet
poker and internet gaming. this misguided approach would only serve to harm the most vulnerable populations that regulation properly protects. i'd like to take a moment to provide the subcommittee with information on how a combination of regulation and technology can meet these challenges. due to time constraints, i urge you to review my submitted testimony for more in depth review of these facts. with respect to underage access, gaming site operators are require to implement state-of-the-art age verification software before being licensed and accounts are set up. failure to undertake rigorous age verification will result in the loss of a license and a closure of a business. while the u.s. market is still very new, it is notable that in nevada, which began accepting internet poker play this year, there has not been a single reported incident of underage access. another important matter is to ensure we are appropriately addressing problem gambling. comprehensive research on the
issue says that online gaming operators have tools to combat problem gaming. most regulated online gaming markets require their licensees employ these technologys to combat against gaming abuse. the activity is fraud and criminalality, let me say the prohibition will just play into the hands of the criminal element just as it did in the 1920's when alcohol was banned. it is far better for the players' financial fate if their safety and security of their internet gaming transactions are in the hands of the u.s. banking system and responsible american regulated gaming corporations. again, i ask that you refer to my submitted testimony for greater details on these issues and i welcome the opportunity to discuss them further in the q&a portion of this hearing. in closing, it might be useful to focus on the questions that are not before the committee right now. first, this committee is not
deciding whether americans will gamble on the internet. millions of them do so today, and except in a few states where the activity license they are playing on offshore sites. second, the committee need not ask if internet gaming can be successfully regulated. it is successfully regulated today in european jurisdictions and here in the u.s., online casino and poker games are regulated in three states and online lottery and horse bets are regulated in dozens more. the question before this committee is who, if anyone, will provide u.s. players with a safe and well-regulated place to play poker on the internet. we continue to urge congress to enact the barton bill and thus accomplish this federally. at a minimum, we ask congress to do nothing for the states from licensing and regulating internet poker. once again, members, of the committee, i look forward for the opportunity to testify and look forward to your questions.
>> thank you. mr. bernal, you are recognized for five minutes. >> good afternoon. my name is les bernal. thank you mr. chairman and members of the subcommittee on -- my name is les bernal and i am the national director of stop predatory gamble. you would never do that. but for the last 40 years in american life, that's exactly what government has been doing by sponsoring and promoting casinos and state lotries. the more citizens put their money into these games, the more money they're going to lose. government in this case is not merely permitting private consensual behavior. this is a public policy. this is a government program. that actively sponsors gambling and promotes it by granth
monopolies and rewarding recognizetory advantages to favored firms. government sponsored gambling is a public policy that's failed. and it's failed because, one, it has transformed gambling from a private and local activity into the public voice of american government. such that ever increasing appeals to gamble and ever expanding opportunities to gamble now constitute the main ways that our government communicates with us on a daily basis. it has failed to deliver on its promises to fund education, to lower taxes, to pay for needed public services. just look at the evidence from your own states. thirdly, most importantly of all, government sponsored gambling has failed because it has contributed to patterns of inequality in america. increasing the divide in our country, between the halves and the have nots. there are many forces currently contributing to the rise of
inequality such as globalization and technological change that cannot be directly controlled by public policy. but government sponsored gambling is a public policy, and it exists only because policymakers want it to exist. so whether it's internet gambling or other forms of government sponsored gambling, this is a public policy that's based on cheating and exploiting citizens. the best example is slot machines. the machine is mathematically designed that you'll lose your money the longer you play it. it's -- from the git-go, either the more you play and the more you lose. and internet gambling is online slot which makes up to 65% to 80% of all online gambling traffic. in the brick and mortar business, 75% of the money they make is coming from slots. it's all about slot machines. and government sponsored slots are cheating and exploiting citizens. in 2004, "new york times"
reporter gary rivlin toured the headquarters of i.g.t. america's biggest maker of electronic slot machines and today they have a leading platform for internet gambling. he tells the story to the igt building. quote, most of the people i met inside i.g.t. told me they never played slot machines on their own time. even one corporate p.r. staff member couldn't resist shaking her head in disbelief as she described scenes of people lining up to play a new machine. quote, it was unbelievable to me, she told me. and when i asked when i.g.t. if he ever plays, he acted as if i insulted him. slots are for losers, he spat. and then coming to his senses, begged me to consider that an off-the-record commept. to a "new york times" reporter, slots are for losers, he said, and many of these losers are your constituents. government's partnership with gambling, there's one kind of loser who is the most lucrative
of all, the problem gambler. we refer these people as the expendable americans because everyone else is going to benefit from the public dollars that comes in from people's gambling losses, but millions of people are expendable, the addicts. they spend millions of dollars in research to create the public impression they're exnot exploiting american citizens. there are two questions never answered and maybe we'll get that at this hearing today. the first one is, how much gamble revenue comes from problem gamblers? and the second question is, what percentage of gambling revenue comes from people who follow, quote, responsible gambling codes of conduct. we hear that a lot. responsible gambling. how much of that revenue is coming from people that actually practice that? in my last page there are 11 different studies, 11 different independent studies that show 40% to 60% of their profits, gambling profits come from problem gamblers. that list was compiled as part of a recent report called "why
gambling matters." the second question is, gamblers who follow responsible gambling codes of conduct merely contribute 4% of revenues. government's partnership with gambling has failed. the evidence all around us says it's a failed experiment and sponsoring internet gambling would be a failure. just like they would put money in a video game that would never win, i ask them not to sponsor internet gambling. >> thank you. dr. volberg, you're recognized for five minutes. >> thank you, chairman terry, ranking member schakowsky and members of the subcommittee. i'd like to thank you for inviting me to testify this morning. my testimony will be in the wake of internet gambling, on possible changes to the more developing problems and on
additional measures that could be adopted to protect consumers and minimize harm. the bill before you provides for federal oversite of states and tribes that would issue licenses for online poker. h.r. 266 includes several requirements for addressing problem gambling and responsible gambling, including provisions for a federally backed self-exclusion program. h.r. 2666 requires states and tribes to adopt practices that the federal government recommends to protect consumers and amends the public service act to give sansa authority to address gambling addiction. while these are welcomed improvements over an earlier version, i remain concerned that while h.r. 266 authorizes them to establish and implement programs for the identification, prevention and treatment of problem gambling, there is no specific mention of research or any provision to assure that remp on online
gambling and its impacts will be undertaken. there is substantial research internationally showing that problem gambling rates are three times to four times hoyer among online gamblers compared to those who gamble but not online. it's quite likely that there will be an increase in online fwambling prevalence in the u.s. as participation increases and as inexperienced players encounter difficulties controlling their involvement. although these new problem gamblers may eventually overcome the difficulties relating to their gambling, most of the financial, psychological, social, work, school and legal harms associated with problem gambling cannot be undone. problem gambling is not distributed evenly throughout the population and some groups are more vulnerable than others. generally speaking, males, adolescents, some racial and ethnic groups and people with low income and education have the lowest rates of problem
gambling. however, in some countries, rates of online gambling participation are higher among women and older adults compared with more traditional forms of gambling. and these new groups of gamblers may be particularly vulnerable to developing problems going forward. understanding who is vulnerable has relevance to both gambling policy and the development of effective interventions. beyond likely increases in prevalence, risk profiles may also change, and it will be important to be prepared to address the needs of new groups of problem gamblers as these emerge in an online environment. constructing public policy and developing effective interventions requires empurecal evidence which in ter -- empirical evidence. research serves an increasingly critical role in informing gambling policy and regulation. however, the roughly $3 million
that is spent annually on gambling research in the united states means that we know very little about how gambling in our country can be most safely provided. my own experience suggests that redressing this issue requires enshrining both consumer protection and the role of research in legislation that permits new forms of gambling. most such legislation emphasizes revenue generation and mention is rarely made of consumer protection. that's why i'm particularly proud of the legislation that was passed two years ago in my home state of massachusetts. the expanded gaming act makes it clear that the intention of the statute is to provide the greatest possible economic benefits while reducing the -- to the maximum the potentially negative consequences of introducing casino gambling to the commonwealth. the effort to reduce negative consequences includes establishment of a public health trust fund from which 5% of the tax revenues generated
annually by the three new casinos will be distributed for problem gambling research, prevention and treatment. thank you for your -- thank you for the opportunity to testify and i look forward to answering your question. >> well, thank you, dr. volberg. mr. eggert, you are now recognized for your five minutes. >> thank you, mr. chairman. madam ranking member and members of the committee. i appreciate you inviting me back. i was here two years ago as a similar -- to testify similarly. i talk about consumer protection and gambling and gambling is a consumer industry which means that consumer protection should be hard wired into every aspect of its regulation. and so i'd like to talk about what i consider three very important aspects of consumer protection that should be considered in legalizing internet gambling. number one is that gamblers should always be provided with all of the information that
they need in order to make good decisions about whether, when, where and how to gamble. they should be given the information they need to be good shoppers. it used to be that we looked down on gamblers and treated them like lesser, you know, almost evil people. and now they are just consumers. it's like buying a car. if you're buying a car, you get to have information about gas mileage. in the same way, if you're buying gambling, you should felt all the information you need. a crucial piece of information for slot machines is the hold percentage. every slot percentage is designed to have a specific hold percentage which is the amount that the casino on average keeps of the bet, returning the rest in wings. why don't we get to know -- winnings. why don't we get to know that every time we play a slot machine? that's basic information that every consumer should have anytime they play a slot machine, either on the internet
or on land-based can -- casinos. it's especially important for internet can seen ost. you haven't picked the slot machine based on the staff or the ambience or floor shows. you are sitting in front of your computer. if you're looking where to play, the whole percentage -- hold percentage of the slot machine should be paramount. so any internet slot machine should tell you as you shop and as you gamble what hold percentage you're facing. the second rule of consumer protection internet gambling concerns bots, poker bots. what these are are consumer software programs designed to play poker. and i think it's important that players shouldn't lose money to poker bots that can play better than they can. unless they want to. if you choose to say, i want to go against the best bot in the world, more power to you, but you should get to know that
that's what you're doing. now, there was a poker bot ring in sweden in the last year that as far as i can tell from the news, one -- like $1 million or more in just a couple motz. if bots are strong -- couple months. if bots are strong enough to do that, they are a significant threat, and we have to address that problem. bot makers are getting better all the time. there is a bot playing limit texas hold 'em that according to "the new york times" can beat most people in the world. there is a new company that says they designed a neuro network bot that can play no limit texas hold 'em as well as most people. and so as computers get better, as neuro networks get better, making bots is going to get easier and easier and the day will come when some kid in their garage with a high-powered computer can make a bot that can defeat most
human players. it will be a challenge to stop that, and if we can't stop that, we have to give players some defense so that they know if they're playing a bot or if they're playing somebody who plays abnormally well like a bot might, and so i ask we have ratings for poker players so you can tell when you're facing a much, much better player that might well be a bot. a third important aspect of consumer protection is giving players the power to self-exclude and to limit their play, either by the day, week or month, by how long they play or how much they bet, and give them this kind of protection so they can control their betting. it's a consumer industry. consumers should be empowered to make good decisions. and so the industry should give them the tools they need to make good decisions. in my testimony, i talk a lot about what the different states
have done and what congressman barton's bill has done and i'd be happy to answer questions about that further. but, again, i thank you for allowing me to testify. >> well, thank you for your return performance. sticking with kind of a show theme. now it's time to begin our questions. my first one -- because you're a law professor, i want to ask you this -- >> guilty as charged. >> this is a d.o.j. opinion about the wire act. people tell me it's the law. can you work us through as quickly as you can as a law professor, is that the law? >> well, the law is what the courts and the people enforcing the laws say it is to some extent. >> good point. >> i think it's a valid
interpretation of the law. the d.o.j.'s position, i think, you can make a strong argument that it's the correct one. so it isn't the law itself, but it's not a horrible misinterpretation of the law. > what happens if new jersey or nevada or texas goes forward and there's a new administration next year -- a couple years -- or there will be -- and the d.o.j. goes back to the previous four administrations' interpretations of the wire act? >> then you would have an interesting battle between the states, which i think at that point would be loathe to give up their flourishing internet industry, and they and the d.o.j. would have to fight it out in the courts. ultimately the courts would determine who is correct. >> and that would be a ripe one for the supreme court to
probably take up on a fast track. >> i would think so. i would think so. >> legally, it's just very interesting. as a former lawyer, those are the type of issues that kind of get my attention but also as a father, they get my attention, and probably starting at about 8, my kids became pretty savvy shoppers with my credit card online. in fact, there was the point where i said, you go to the yourself. do it >> add to cart. >> on dad's credit card which they think is theirs. and so in fact, they -- at least for their lacrosse equipment, does that all the time. my card's already in there. and so they get their new set of lacrosse gloves or pads or whatever and then the next day i open up my email and see the receipt and then call them and say what the heck did you do.
but, mr. abboud, and then to r. pappas as well, how do we prevent the children who, as mr. abboud said and when you said that it hit right at home, how do we really know if a minor's playing if they're using dad's credit card or mom's, and how do we prevent that? mr. abboud first. >> don't legalize it. >> ok. >> mr. pappas. >> shut down illegal operators that are operating today. you can get into a long technological discussion about whether you can or can't prevent minors from getting involved. i think some people believe you can. some people believe you can't. i've seen the technological demonstrations. i think there areary a barrier to market. i think when they go through all that, if you don't shut down the illegal sites, that's
where they'll end up. when you speak to children, with respect to congressman barton, whom i have tremendous respect for, and for mr. pappas to my left, i think their intentions about poker are very clear. but i don't think that's the intent of the legalization of online gaming. i think that the unclear nature of what the wire act meets was hopefully congress would take action. and i think that using the poker analogy, for the industry to go state by state, particularly in nevada, to try and scare congress into acting was probably the worst bluff in the history of poker. in nevada almost shamefully they rushed it through the legislature with an emergency declaration, passed unanimously pass h houses, we need to this poker bill now. we need to set the precedent. it's just poker. it's just poker. it's just poker.
nine months later it turns out it wasn't just poker. they have the ability without the act of the legislature to do full online gaming because it wasn't sustainable. poker is not a sustainable market. it's fine if people want to play poker online. if it's safe they can probably do it. but it's about this. it's about slot machines geared towards children. rvel comics, iron man, kitty slots. this stuff is not what we're about. unless we shut down those illegal sites and unless we restore the wire act -- >> i want to save some time for mr. pappas on that. by the way, when i got on one of my ipads, they did download an app for slots. i deleted it. it wasn't gambling. just a regular app. mr. pappas. >> i appreciate the opportunity to respond. i think it's important that we
recognize that age verification technology exists, not only in internet gaming, but all forms of ecommerce when age is restricted. when you talk about children buying lacrosse products, that wasn't age restricted product. if a person wants to make a deposit on a -- internet gaming website, they would have to go through tremendous and rigorous levels in order to be able to make that deposit, proving they are not only who they are, saying who they are, this is john pappas depositing but that john pappas is actually 21 years of age. as i mentioned in my testimony, underage access in nevada, where this has been going on since april, has been zero. there is not one report of underage access -- >> how do you know, though? that's one of the questions i have. how do you know, though? >> because regulators actively seek to try to get on the sites themselves. and if there was a parent or a child was able to access a
site, and i suspect if they lost money on that site, the parent would have to report that to the authorities, to the regulators as well as to the credit agencies. and this he would either get a refund for the money. none of that has been recorded. if you look at the european experience, which has been going on for a decade, the internet safety notified the european commission that since 2007 they have not been made aware of a single instance where a child has beaten the system and gotten online to gamble. the fact is age verification is here. it's working very effectively today. i welcome any way we can improve it to ensure that children don't have access to these sites because i think that's extremely important. i will say it's been working very effectively already. >> thank you. my time is up. now the ranking member of the committee, you're recognized for five minutes for your questions. >> well, first of all, let me congratulate the panel. every one of you. i found i saw nodding as the
arguments are compelling. but mr. abboud, you gave very passionate testimony, i think, but i know that -- i just want to mention this that the venetian casino is owned and operated by sands. mr. sheldon addelson, and there's actually promotion of mobile casino wagering. a direct quote from the venetian, quote, is there anything you can't do on a smartphone or tablet nowadays? mobile casino gambling is available to you on property during your stay and you can even play from your room. that's one quote. and the other is, also promote on their website, a mobile sports betting app for smartphones, tablets and p.c.'s, and they tout that the app, quote, allows you to wager anywhere in nevada. which is not a far cry from anywhere in the united states. so i just want to say that, you
know, there's a little -- feels to me a little hypocritical. but having said that, i wanted ask about mr. eggert, the consumer protections. do you feel that it is possible to make sure that the consumer protections are built into legislation sufficiently to protect people from the potential abuses of online gambling? >> i think there are good consumer protection devices that can be built in. i'm not sure if you can ever have a perfect system. i think the problem of poker bots is going to be a difficult one. and i don't know that there is a good consumer protection solution to bots. but i think for slot machines, we can certainly have better protection than we have in
almost anyplace in the country. specifically better information about hold percentages. and i think you can also design good methods for people to control their gambling that should be hard wired into it so we can do a lot better, but i don't think you can have a perfect system. >> i also wanted to ask about, ain -- was it mr. abboud talking about it's public policy, were you the one talking about how now we've turned gambling -- that was you, mr. bernal. here's the thing. we're sold -- i was in the state legislature. we're often sold the lottery and other kinds of gambling revenue as helping our schools and -- in illinois, supposedly, for education. i know that for a time it
really displaced money that would ordinarily go from the general revenue fund to education. i think that was corrected now in illinois. but what is the history of that? do these revenues, which are significant, actually help us to fund the needed priorities for our governments? >> without question, the answer so that it has failed to produce revenues that they promised. you can't -- no one can name a state in this country where -- georgia to washington state where people have said, you know, in georgia they're going to fund scholarships through their lottery. in the end what we see happening is low-income people losing money to pay for middle-class kids go to college. and now that revenue hasn't sustained itself so now they're going to turn to slots in georgia. >> do we have studies? >> the rockefeller institute in albany, suny university, has done a great job. more than any other entity out
there. has done a great breakdown, the fact that gambling is not a sustainable revenue source from a governmental standpoint. >> and dr. volberg, mr. bernal also cited some studies about the amount of revenue that comes from problem gamblers. is there a way, do you think, that would actually work that could address that problem? >> yeah. >> microphone. >> sorry. the issue of the proportion of revenues that come from problem gamblers has been a contentious one. and mr. bernal's testimony lists quite a number of different studies that have een done, but the challenge is that the ratios are different n different jurisdictions.
so the industry's approach to trying to address the issue of how much they depend on problem gamblers is -- has been to try to expand the pool of people who gamble occasionally so that you have less people who are problem -- who are -- more people who are contributing to the pot, if you will. but i think in the end, the ndustry is going to be depebbedent to saying degree on people who spend more than many of us think they should on their gambling involvement. >> if i could just make one more comment. in illinois, the lottery manager was just directed to expand the promotion beyond low-income people to people who have more revenue. thank you.
>> the chair recognizes the full committee vice chair, mrs. blackburn. >> thank you, mr. chairman. and as a point of i think just kind of reality point to this hearing, mr. barton, who we all dearly love, got off on a little bit of a tanjent, when he did his opening statement this morning and he said that god is in favor of his online poker bill because his flight got in early and, you know, he thinks he had angel wings to help get him here. but i would encourage the gentleman from texas to remember he only need look at 2666, ber of his bill, to remember that the devil is in the details. of careful point guidance and instruction.
>> at least you were listening to me. >> mr. barton, i am always listening. we women do that very well. ooh! yeah. ok. back to the questioning. aren't you all glad you came? we're glad you came because i don't know if it is, mr. eggert, the bot net that is out there spamming our twitter accounts or what, but indeed they are very active. and we fully realize that. some of you may be aware that congressman welch and i are co-chairs of a privacy working group. and ms. schakowsky is a part of this. i have to tell you on a -- it's a bipartisan group. it's a part of this committee. we are enjoying the education that we are getting on privacy issues and concerns from our constituents, and we're learning a lot. and one of the things that we
have really taken note of is w incredibly complex the expectations of privacy are were constituents. and from different participants in the industry. and we are seeking to work through this in our working group sessions. so mr. freeman and mr. pappas, i want to come to you. i just very simply -- and mr. freeman, let's start with you. what are the expectations a consumer will have of privacy for their participation and their information if they -- if they log onto one of the sites? first you and, mr. pappas, if you'll follow him. >> thank you, congresswoman. i think many were expecting andy and i to have the fireworks today. i'm thrilled to have you and mr. barton taking the stage. when it comes to privacy, it's obviously an area that we value
significantly. consumer protection, a topic that's been a primary issue here today, should be an issue and it's an issue we believe in very passionately. the only way to address privacy, the only way to address consumer protection is through effective regulation. the black market is the one area where these issues won't be addressed. with online gaming, all of this is voluntary. people are going on, they're providing the information themselves. they're choosing to enter that information in there. through the regulatory bodies, the protection of that information is assured. that's what makes this -- that's what makes this situation unique in that sense that one, people are choosing to do this in a voluntary manner. two, regulators are ensuring that this information is protected. >> ok. >> first, let me start by saying that the messages you've been receiving via twitter and fay book i assure you are -- facebook assure are from your district who care about playing online. second, the issues of privacy for internet gaming are no
different than it would be from ecommerce company, be it amazon or facebook. we believe that licensed entities would have to require all of the same privacy and data security laws that every other american company must apply. you know, today we have a situation where american consumers, except for those in the three states where it is authorized, are playing on offshore sites and they are not subject to any u.s. law or regulation. so we're asking for a federal law or state law that ensure that the players, the sites are authorized, regulated and that those sites are adhering to all of the strong data privacy laws that this congress or states come up with. >> ok. thank you. mr. chairman, i've got two other questions i'm going to submit because of time. one it pertains to mr. abboud's testimony and the november 13 f.b.i. crimes division letter. and then the other pertains to
the 2009 british hacker, ashley mitchell, when he was posing as an administration for zinga poker games. with that i yield back. >> thank you. now recognize for five minutes, the gentleman from vermont. >> thank you very much. folks are going to gamble. they like to do it. in any way they can they will. and obviously there are legitimate reasons and there are folks that get overwhelmed with it just like any kind of activity. so anything we do has to include some protections. you've been trying to do that in las vegas, as i understand it. but i want to direct these questions to professor volberg and professor eggert. how do we ensure that minimizing the harm is baked in as a priority from the start and not simply laid on afterwards after the fact and the harm is done? i mean, if we get at it in the beginning with some sensible plan that has in my view more
prospect for being successful and helping more people? >> i think the way you do that is you plan it before you legalize the internet gambling. it should be something that should be written into the regulations from day one. i think there's a lot of room. i am we with professor -- dr. volberg on this, a lot of room for research to see what helps with problem gamblers. as far as consumer protection, it's pretty straightforward what information people need and want in order to gamble. they should be provided that. one of my concerns about the state-by-state approach, i'm worried it will be a race to the bottom with states with weak protections will win out over states with stronger protections, and any federal program has to take that into account and prevept it -- prevent it from happening. >> dr. volberg. >> i guess i'd echo professor
eggert's remarks. you do have to start even before the regulations. you have to bake the language into the legislation that says this is not just about raising revenues or, you know, paying for other programs. this is about consumer protection and making sure that what we put in place is going to work. >> ok. thank you. mr. freeman and mr. pappas, you're advocates for this. what are your views on having as part of any authorization consumer -- a consumer protections and, b, some help to problem gamblers? start with you, mr. freeman. >> it's not an industry comes before you for regulation. that's what the gaming industry is doing today, asking for specific points around age verification, around consumer protection. responsible gaming. the way to do that is obviously through regulation. to the previous point that was made. the way our industry behaves, being regulated in nevada and mississippi and countless states around the country, we
are actually held to the highest standard because any state in which we do business can punish us for what we do in another market. what we actually have is a race to the top in that sense and it's worked for an extented period of time for our industry. >> mr. pappas. >> most definitely. i mean, i represent a consumer-driven organization, so consumer protections are paramount to our concern. and that's why we believe a regulated market is going to far protect consumers than a prohibition or even the status quo. we believe that regulation that lawmakers require that regulators implement best of breed technologies and that it gives the companies the flexibility to innovate and beat all of the potential problems that have been raised. and i think that that is the best way to proceed with lawmakers setting the standards, regulators, enforcing those standards, and companies innovating and making them even better. >> mr. abboud, you raised some legit mate concerns on the
minds of lawmakers in the states and also here. i mean, is it your view that there really are no protections that could be part of any authorizing legislation that would get the job done so it's better not to do it at all? >> well, as i said, when the wire act was overturned, that's not the day the internet became safe. it's an issue that we study and an issue that we study every day. we don't feel that the technology there is to safeguard consumers to the extent -- >> let me ask this. if the technology were there, then would you have a different point of view? >> if the -- i don't think this is a market that we would ever go into. we think that turning every device into a casino takes gambling too far. >> so what would be the proper limit as you see it? >> none. this country -- we talked about the european model. we have something in the united states that they don't have. billions and billions of dollars of brick and mortar casinos that generate job, that
generate livelihoods across the country, based on shows, conventions, trade shows. europe doesn't have that simply europe stepped forward and pandered to the lowest common denominator is something our industry should follow. >> thank you. i yield back. >> thank you, mr. welch. now recognizing the vice chair of the subcommittee, mr. lance, for five minutes. >> thank you. i think this is a very important panel. i respect everyone who is on the panel. i hope to participate in the hearing for its full length. i do have a health subcommittee as well. but i certainly am deeply interested in the views of everyone on the panel. to mr. pappas, you've stated in your testimony that the bill does not force any state to participate in an interstate internet poker system. and equally as important, it allows states to implement their own online gaming
regulations. as you are aware, new jersey has begun internet gambling. with this legislation, in your view in any way preempt what new jersey is currently doing? 666 barton's bill, h.r. -- 2666 would not in any way restrict the ability of nevada or any state to provide -- >> i think your microphone is off. >> you're right. i'm sorry. mr. barton's bill would not restrict in any way the ability of new jersey or any other tate to provide house casino games, lottery tickets except poker. it would require the state become an authorized federal body. authorized by the federal government to continue to do that. given that new jersey has -- is known for being one of the most robust gaming regulations. >> and heavily regulated. >> they would easily meet if not exceed whatever standards
the federal government sets aside. >> thank you. and then to mr. freeman and mr. abboud. regarding the d.o.j. opinion as it concerns the wire act, is it the view of both of you -- i know you reach a different onclusion, but does there need to be statutory legislation in this regard as opposed nearly to an opinion from the current d.o.j.? first, mr. freeman and then mr. abboud. >> it's our opinion that the online gaming environment would be better with congress putting in place minimum thresholds in the areas i discussed, of age verification, of geo locations and others. without that states are moving forward. they're putting in place, as your state is doing, very comprehensive regulations. i think they're showing an ability to regulate this market effectively. >> thank you. mr. abboud. >> well, as i stated previously, we think that the wire act, being overturned
could be overturned at any moment by any administration. the states that are going forward are doing so with great risk. as are the -- my fellow industry members are going forward with great risk. so that's why we have -- that is why i'm here asking for the wire act to be restored so we can take away that ambiguity. >> and you'd restore it in such a way this would not be permitted? >> correct. >> and mr. freeman, you would modify it to permit it with certain federal regulations? >> again, putting in place those minimum standards. in the absence of that, or even with the changes that are recommended, people are going to continue to game. as we mentioned before, in 2012, nearly $3 billion was spent fixing the wire act does nothing to change the desire that's been referenced. >> i tend to agree with that. and certainly i believe in new jersey we have tried to be responsible, and let me repeat that i believe that new jersey regulation is strict.
and we have had a generation of experience in this regard. but i certainly respect both of your points of view on this issue. mr. pappas, regarding congressman barton's legislation, would it in any way prevent new jersey from offering games of chance such as black jack or slots? >> no, sir, it would not restrict the ability. for any house bank games, poker would be the only place where new jersey would have to consult with the federal law. > and from your perspective, that consultation would be relatively easy and seamless and it's hikely that new jersey could -- likely that new jersey could continue to do what it's doing? >> it's our hope. as an organization, we fought very hard for the new jersey law and we support that law and we support mr. barton's law and we hope it can work together.
>> thank you. from my perspective, the governor of new jersey, my close friend, governor christie, try to work in a comprehensive fashion and we try to work with all of those who are interested in this issue, including all of those on this panel. and i want to thank the panel. and mr. abboud, you certainly represent a very great corporation in this country, sands, and i deeply respect that. thank you, mr. chairman. >> thank you, mr. lance. and now the chairman emeritus for the full committee, mr. joe barton. you are recognized. >> thank you, mr. chairman. let me start out, i was being somewhat flippant when i talked about god being for this bill. obviously god doesn't care a fig one way or another about our bill. but i will say as a practicing christian that god does give men and women free will. and i think we ought to have a law that reflects free will in
this issue. say in my opening statement, but we do have some representatives of the indian casinos and indian gaming associations in the room and they were invited to present testimony and be a part of the panel. it was a voluntary basis so they were invited and they chose not to. but obviously indian gaming is a huge part of this issue since almost as much and perhaps more people play in indian casinos than non-indian casinos. mr. freeman, in your testimony you gave a list of things that you said federal legislation should include or accomplish. in listening to you, i believe hit all ill, h.r. 2666 those points.
do you agree with that? >> mr. barton, your bill certainly hits those points and others. there are points we'd certainly like to see added to that and happy to discuss those with you. >> ok. and mr. abboud, i'm glad that you're here and you represent the sands corporation. the first hotel casino that i stayed in as a young man when i went to las vegas for the first time was the old sands. and just last year, i held a political fundraising event at the venetian, which i believe is a property of this current sands corporation. and so i have great respect for the company that you represent. ms. schakowsky pointed out in some stioning advertising material. i'd like to put that up on the board.
up on the screen. he cantor gaming, which is a vendor of sands and does the venetian. has -- on that particular slide right there, is there anything ou can't do on a smartphone or tablet nowadays, mobile casino gaming is available to you on property during your stay. you can even play from your room. and then the next one, which at the venetian. it talks about their sports book that you can wager from anywhere in nevada. now, i want to be fair on the first slide about the gaming. it does not allow you to play poker from your room for some reason. you can do slots or roulette or wheel of fortune or whatever, but i'd like to hear your
comments on this because what you're advertising here, as ms. schakowsky pointed out, is the same thing that we're talking about in my bill, for poker only, it's just a matter of how wide the geography is or the wireless connection. >> well, that's why we're here today and i appreciate the opportunity to respond to what congresswoman schakowsky said. because it's all about human interaction, right? congressman, all of you have the right to eyeball me and determine whether or not i'm telling the truth. and you can hold me accountable. doesn't happen with a lot of online gaming opportunities, does it? and it's also about the location. that is a very controlled environment in a regulated state, in a regulated casino that can be done within the four walls of our building. you have to go up to congressman terry, if he works at the cage, fill out the application, have an
eyeball-to-eyeball experience. make sure you are aren't on the self-exclusion list. make sure you haven't had too much to drink. >> i don't want you to filibuster the last 30 seconds. what you're -- what your company is advertising here, except for the geography, is the same thing that my bill does. and my bill is poker only. poker only. now, i've never met a professional roulette player. i've never met a professional slots player. but there are lots of professional poker players, because it is a game of skill. now, if we're at the final table here, mr. long, myself, mr. harper, mr. terry, ms. schakowsky, i'm -- i've got a high probability that i can tell you which one of us comes out the winner at the final table. because i played with billy
long and i think he probably beats me. i've never played with jan, so i don't know. she may be a sleeper. [laughter] but poker is a game of skill. and all my bill does is allow free will at the state level if the governor allows it for people who want to to play poker online. and i, again, appreciate mr. terry for his holding this hearing. i'm going to stay and hear the other questions. maybe, if given the opportunity, i'd like a second round for myself if -- >> jan and i will discuss it. the gentlelady from illinois and i will discuss that. mr. harper, you're recognized for five minutes. >> thank you, mr. chairman. and thank each of you for being here on what is a very important topic and one that is -- has created a little bit of a division. ok. quite a divide. but i -- you know, we have, of
course, legal gambling in the state of mississippi. it's a big industry. on average about $2.2 billion worth of revenue a year, spent on gambling in mississippi versus maybe, what, $10 billion a year on average in nevada, perhaps, but it's -- but it is a tourism-driven business. the brick and mortar issues, very important there. and it is a destination so that what you see is not just a casino but you see restaurants, golf courses, water parks. i mean, other things that are there. this brings none of that. my concern -- i guess my overriding concern is, if we address this issue and we do what mr. barton proposes or what others may propose is how are we doing anything to
address what is the underlying problem or the background problem of offshore and out-of-country illegal sites? we're not addressing that. >> our live coverage of this hearing will continue at c-span.org. the house is about to meet. members will consider three bills. two dealing with veterans issues. and another allowing people who shouldn't be buried in national cemeteries to be removed. the house is also doing a number of minor bills, awaiting for larger bills to be completed. [captioning performed by national captioning institute] [captions copyright national cable satellite corp. 2013] day. we ask your blessing on all worldwide who mourn the death of nelson mandela. one of the great figures of human history and most certainly of our own era, mandiba joined a small fellowship of heroic people whose commitment to nonviolence and reconciliation ultimately changed our world.
as today marks the 20th anniversary of the office of the united states high commissioner for human rights, we ask that you give all who inhabit the earth the will to intensify our efforts to fulfill our collective responsibility, to promote and protect the rights and dignity of all people everywhere. and the wisdom to know how best to do so. bless thus day and every day and may all that is done within the people's house be for your greater honor and glory, amen. the speaker pro tempore: the chair has examined the journal of the last day's proceedings and announces to the house his approval thereof. pursuant to clause 1 of rule 1, the journal stands approve the pledge of allegiance will be led by the gentlewoman from arizona,
mrs. kirkpatrick. mrs. kirkpatrick: i pledge allegiance to the flag of the united states of america and to the republic for which it stands, one nation, under god, indivisible, with liberty and justice for all. the speaker pro tempore: the chair will entertain requests for 15 one-minute speeches on each side of the aisle. for what purpose does the gentlewoman from north carolina rise? ms. foxx: i request unanimous consent to address the house for one minute, mr. speaker. the speaker pro tempore: the gentlewoman is recognized for one minute. ms. foxx: thank you, mr. speaker. even the white house's best obamacare damage control efforts , waivers, delays, deadline adjustments and temporary fixes sadly leave the so-called affordable care act's sand untouched. math undergirding the entire law remains structurally unsound and threatens the broader insurance market in this country.
that's a shame for each and every american. as someone who wants to see greater accessened affordability in health care and more options for americans in the individual insurance market, it is my hope that the country moves toward a competitive, patient-centered system like the one outlined by the house republican study committee in the american health care reform act. something as important as trans-- as important and transformative as health care policy should never be forced on the american people on an embarrasscally unstudied and purely partisan basis the way president obama chose to proceed with the affordable care act. i yield back. the speaker pro tempore: for what purpose does the gentlewoman from arizona rise? mrs. kirkpatrick: i ask unanimous condition sent to address the house for one minute and revise and extend my remarks. the speaker pro tempore: the gentlewoman is recognized for one minute. mrs. kirkpatrick: i rise in favor of h.r. 3541 which authorizes medical facility leases for the department of
veterans' affairs. i'm a co-sponsor of this bipartisan bill and i am pleased it will allocate $20 million for community based outpatient clinics in my home state of arizona. the phoenix v.a. health care system serves the majority of our veterans, more than 300,000 veterans reside in service area. aving an additional facility will help these men and women access the care they deserve. i thank my colleagues on both sides of the aisle for supporting this bill. helping our veterans isn't a partisan issue, it's a national responsibility and i yield back. thank you, mr. speaker. the speaker pro tempore: the gentlewoman yields back. the chair lays before the house a communication. the clerk: the honorable the peeker, house of representatives, sir, pursuant to the permission granted in clause 2h of rule 2 of the rules of the u.s. house of representatives, the clerk received the following message from the secretary of the senate
on december 9, 2013, at 6:06 p.m., that the senate passed, without amendment, h.r. 3626, signed sincerely, karen l. haas. the speaker pro tempore: pursuant to clause 4 of rule 1, the following enrolled bill was signed by the speaker pro tem denham on monday, december 9, 2013. the clerk: h.r. 3626. a bill to extend the undetectable firearms act of 1988 for 10 years.
the speaker pro tempore: pursuant to clause of rule 20, the chair will postpone further proceedings today on motions to suspend the rules on which a recorded vote or the yeas and nays are ordered or on which the vote occurs objection under clause 6 of rule 20. record votes on postponed questions will be taken later. for what purpose does the gentleman from florida seek recognition? >> mr. speaker, i move to suspend the rules and pass h.r. 3521, the department of veterans' affairs major medical facility lease authorization act of 2013, with an amendment. the speaker pro tempore: the clerk will report the title of the bill. the clerk: h.r. 3521, a bill to
authorize department of veterans' affairs major medical facility leases and for other purposes. the speaker pro tempore: pursuant to the rule, the gentleman from florida, mr. miller, a thend gentleman from maine, mr. michaud, each will control 20 minutes. the chair recognizes the gentleman from florida. mr. miller: i ask unanimous consent that all members have five legislative days in which to revise and extend their remarks an h.r. 3521 as amended. the speaker pro tempore: without objection, so ordered. mr. miller: i yield myself such time as i may consume. the speaker pro tempore: the gentleman is recognized. mr. miller: h r. 3521 is the department of veterans' affairs major medical facility lease authorization act of 20136789 as amended, it will authorize 27 major medical facility leases as requested by the v.a. in the fiscal year of 2013 and 2014 budget submissions. i would also make a number of -- it would also make a number of congressional findings and
establish budgetary requirements for such leases to ensure the legislation itself meets both the spirit and intent of the house cut-go rule. as we all know, when the committee was considering legislation to authorize v.a.'s medical facility leases last year, the congressional budget office raised concerns about how to properly account for v.a.'s lease authorizations. in response to c.b.o.'s concern, section 3 of the bill would require the v.a. to record an obligation at the time a contract is signed in an amount equal to either the total payment that would be made under its full term or an amount equal to the sum of the first annual lease payment and any specified cancellation costs. for the last year, i've remained committed to working closely with v.a., c.b.o., and our colleagues from both sides of the aisle and both sides of the
capitol to find a way forward for v.a.'s major medical facility program on behalf of the veterans of this country especially those in the 27 communities that will be impacted by the leases included in this piece of legislation. to that end, i'm grateful for the hard work and the leadership f our ranking member, mike michaud, of maine, and the other committee members in advancing this piece of legislation to the floor. at this time i urge all my colleagues to join me in supporting h.r. 3521 as amended and i reserve the balance of my time. the speaker pro tempore: the gentleman reserves. the gentleman from maine. mr. michaud: thank you, mr. speaker. i yield myself such time as i may consume. the speaker pro tempore: the gentleman is recognized. mr. michaud: i rise in support of h.r. 3521, the department of veterans' affairs major medical facility lease authorization act of 2013. mr. speaker, this bill would authorize a number of major medical facility leases that
will ensure veterans don't receive care in safe, efficient, and modern clinics closer to home. last year, much to our disappointment, we were unable to pass a lease authorization bill as a result of of h.r. 3521 contains requested for fiscal year 2013 and 2014. 27 leases were included in this bill, from new jersey to hawaii, veterans can expect long-awaited expansions to cramped, community-based outpatient clinics, no clinical research space, and sorely needed replacement facilities. this bill is a bipartisan bill and in the best interests of america's veterans. i appreciate the efforts of my colleagues across the aisle, especially chairman miller, for the collaborative effort that permitted this important legislation to move forward. mr. speaker, i know you'll agree with me that it is our
obligation to ensure that our veterans are provided the best care possible in a timely and safe manner. i believe h.r. 3521, as amended, will do just that. i reserve the balance of my time. the speaker pro tempore: the gentleman reserves. the gentleman from florida. mr. miller: i want to yield to she the vice chairman of veterans affairs, a staunch supporter of veterans issues since he came to this congress, mr. bilirakis. the speaker pro tempore: the gentleman is recognized. mr. bilirakis: i rise in support of h.r. 352 and urge my colleagues to support this important piece of legislation that will allow the v.a. to move forward with these 27 leases in order to better serve the veterans, our true american heroes across the country. veterans in and around the tampa bay area will be particularly served by this legislation. the v.a. recently approved a plan that would take the
currently strained five existing clinics spread out over a large area and consolidate them into a convenient, one-stop facility. this would allow the v.a. to better meet the gring needs of the veteran community and diverse health status. however, this honlt had not been ail to move forward by passing this bill the house will allow for not only the consolidation of five medical clinics in my district into one property but for 26 other equally important projects to move forward across the country, improving access for our heroes. this would not have been done, mr. speaker, without our great chairman here, mr. miller, and our ranking member, mr. michaud. so thank you so very much. i know that our true american heroes are vote reasons, they appreciate it very much. i yield back the balance of my time. the speaker pro tempore: the
gentleman yields back. the gentleman from florida reserves. he gentleman from maine. mr. michaud: mr. speaker, i reserve the balance of my time the balance of my time. the speaker pro tempore: the gentleman from maine reserves the balance of his time. the gentleman from florida. mr. miller: we do have one more speaker and he's been an advocate for this issue for quite some time. mr. boustany from louisiana, who is -- has two of these facilities in his district. i recognize him for two minutes, mr. boustany from the state of louisiana. the speaker pro tempore: the gentleman is recognized for two minutes. mr. boustany: i thank the chairman. mr. speaker, i rise in support of h.r. 3521. chairman jeff ud mill earn the chairman of the budget committee, paul ryan, and their respective staffs on the house veterans' affairs committee and budget committees for advancing this important bill and proving veterans access
to medical care. i also appreciate the work that the two senators from my home state, senators landrieu have been doing and they pledge their progress in the senate. we hope to get this done before end of the year. last year more than 66 members of congress signed our bipartisan, bicameral letter calling for progress on 27 major medical leases proposed by the department of veterans affairs during the past two years. -- places pleases are two clinics. without the authorization of these clinics more than 3,000 south louisianaian veterans must travel in excess of 3 hours, 3 hours to receive medical care. a recent cbs evening news story featured one of these wounded warriors in south louisiana who goes without care because his family must miss work to drive him three hours. this is unacceptable.
the american people expect congress to demonstrate that it did govern effectively in a bipartisan manner. this is one way we can do it, by keeping our promise to our veterans. the passage of this bill will improve medical access for more than 340,000 veterans in 22 states. and that's why i urge our house and senate colleagues to send this bill to the president before the end of the year. again i thank chairman miller for his fine work on this and the committee for giving me the opportunity to speak. i yield back the balance of my time. the speaker pro tempore: the gentleman yields back the balance of his time. the gentleman from florida. mr. miller: we are finished with our speakers at this time. i reserve and allow mr. michaud to close. the speaker pro tempore: the gentleman reserves. the gentleman from maine is recognized. mr. michaud: thank you, mr. speaker. . once again i urge my colleagues to support h.r. 3521 as amended. i yield back the balance of my time. the speaker pro tempore: the gentleman yields back the balance of his time. the gentleman from florida is recognized. mr. miller: thank you, mr. speaker. once again i encourage all members to support this piece of legislation and i yield back the balance of my time. the speaker pro tempore: the question is will the house
suspend the rules and pass the bill h.r. 3521, as amended. so many as are in favor say aye. those opposed, no. in the opinion of the chair, 2/3 of those voting having responded in the affirmative, it the rules are suspended, the bill is passed, and -- the gentleman from florida. mr. miller: i ask for the yeas and nays. the speaker pro tempore: the yeas and nays are requested. all those in favor of taking this vote by the yeas and nays will rise and remain standing until counted. a sufficient number having arisen, the yeas and nays are ordered. pursuant to clause 8 of rule 20, further proceedings on this uestion will be postponed. for what purpose does the gentleman from florida seek recognition? if mr. miller: i move to suspend the rules and pass h.r. 1402 as amended. the speaker pro tempore: the clerk will report the title of the bill. the clerk: h.r. 1402, a bill to amend title 38 united states code to extend the authorization of appropriations for the secretary of veterans affairs to pay a monthly assistance allowance to disabled veterans
training or competing for the paraolympic team, and the authorization of appropriations for the secretary of veterans affairs to provide assistance to the united states paraolympics incorporated. the speaker pro tempore: pursuant to the rule, the gentleman from florida, mr. miller, and the gentleman from maine, mr. michaud, each will control 20 minutes. the chair recognizes the gentleman from florida. mr. miller: thank you very much, mr. speaker. once again i ask unanimous consent that all members may have five legislative days to revise and extend their remarks. and add any extraneous material they may have on h.r. 1402, as amended. the speaker pro tempore: without objection, so ordered. mr. miller: mr. speaker, i yield myself such time as i may consume. the speaker pro tempore: the gentleman is recognized. mr. miller: thank you very much. i rise today in support of h.r. 1402, as amended. the v.a. expiring authorities act of 2013. mr. speaker, to put it simply this bill extends the legal authorization for several of v.a.'s authorities. without enactment of this bill before the 31st of december of
2013, the authorization to run certain programs and to exercise certain legal authorities would end. this could be very detrimental to veterans and their families. for example, the bill extends v.a.'s authority to ensure that severely disabled veterans have priority access to nursing home care. to include those who require that level of care for service connected disabilities. it also extends v.a.'s adaptive sports program that is currently run through a partnership with the u.s. paralympic committee. mr. speaker, i met with veterans who have benefit interested this parter inship and have seen firsthand the activities and events have had on both them and their families. h.r. 1402 as amended would extend other legal authorities to help veterans, including the authorization for treatment and rehabilitative services for homeless and seriously mental ill veterans, housing assistance for homeless veterans, authorization to permit the use
of contract examine providers for disability claims, andself other important extensions. i'm pleased also to report that funding for these extensions was included in both the president's budget request and appropriation bills passed by the house and is pending in the senate. i thank my good friend again, and ranking member of the full committee, mr. michaud, for his assistance in bringing this piece of legislation to the floor. i again want to thank all my colleagues in the senate for reaching an agreement with us on this language, especially the senate v.a. chairman, mr. sanders, and the ranking member, mr. burr of north carolina. i want to encourage all members to support the bill and i reserve the balance of my time. the speaker pro tempore: the gentleman reserves. the gentleman from maine. mr. michaud: thank you, mr. speaker. i yield myself such time as i may consume. the speaker pro tempore: the gentleman is recognized. mr. michaud: thank you, mr. speaker. i rise in full support of h.r. 1402 as amended. the v.a. expiring authorities extension act of 2013. mr. speaker, this bill as amended would extend a number of
critical programs administered by the v.a. it is a bipartisan measure that presages the highly cooperative efforts of the committee staffs and cooperative efforts of our -- effort of our colleagues on the other side of this chamber. h.r. 1402 as amended would extend the authorization of appropriations for the v.a. to provide monthly stipends to athletes competing in large-scale adaptive sports programs. and extend the authority of the v.a. to provide grants to entities that plan and carry out adaptive sports programs. this bill represents a bipartisan and bicameral agreement to modify the existing program and to provide more stringent oversight of the program. h.r. 1402 as amended would also extend to the end of the next year the authority of v.a. to transport certain individuals to and from v.a. facilities to
operate the regional office in the philippines, and contract with nonv.a. physicians to conduct medical disability examinations. h.r. 1402 as amended would also extend the requirement that v.a. provide nursing home care to certain veterans. extend the authority to provide treatment and rehabilitation services for seriously mentally ill and homeless veterans. and extend the authority of the v.a. to provide housing assistance for homeless veterans. finally, this bill would extend the authority of two advisory committees, the advisory committee on homeless veterans, and the advisory committee on education. as well as extend the authority for requirements relating to the sale of pending loans by the v.a. mr. speaker, we have passed many veterans bills out of the house this year. it is my hope that some of these bills will become law before the year is out.
i look forward to working with our colleagues in the senate and make sure we get this bill passed. the job at hand today is to pass this extenders bill. send it over to the senate very quick consideration and to get it to the president's desk before the end of the year, before the authority to continue these vital programs lapse. thank you, mr. speaker. i reserve the balance of my time. the speaker pro tempore: the gentleman reserves the balance of his time. the gentleman from florida. mr. miller: thank you, mr. speaker. one of the things that's necessary in order to bring a piece of legislation that has this many moving parts is somebody who has been involved very much in each of those pieces of legislation. i want to recognize for as much time as he may want to consume, the chairman of the oversight and investigative subcommittee, the gentleman from colorado, mr. coffman. the speaker pro tempore: the gentleman from colorado is recognized. mr. coffman: thank you, mr. speaker. earlier this year i introduced along with representative mark
takano, house house resolution 1402, the veteran paraolympics act and i'm happy to see this legislation is now poised to pass the house along with other important programs for veterans. my portion of this legislation will extend this joint program operated by the department of veterans affairs and the olympic committee that funds grants to adaptive sports programs for disabled veterans all across our country. paralympic programs are adaptive sports for physically disabled athletes and research has shown that paralympic sports and other forms of physical activity are an impactful aspect of the successful rehabilitation for these wounded warriors. the veterans paralympics act will ensure the disabled veterans, a local communities throughout our country, will continue to have opportunities for rehabilitation, stress relief, and higher achievement through adaptive sports. currently there are dozens of
partnership organizations in colorado and over 300 nationwide that are helping our veterans with their rehabilitation through adaptive sports. during committee hearings i discussed the veterans paralympic act with charlie huber in, the u.s. owe almost pick committee's paralympic chief. he stated that this extension would help more than 16,000 disabled veterans in communities throughout america receive adaptive sports rehabilitation. we both emphatically agree that participation in adaptive sports and other athletic activities can help speed the rehabilitation process for disabled veterans. this legislation if passed will ensure rehabilitative opportunities for disabled veterans and local communities throughout the country. i'm proud to lead this effort to extend and support this important program. thank you, mr. speaker. i yield back the balance of my time. the speaker pro tempore: the gentleman yields back the balance of his time. the gentleman from florida reserves. the gentleman from maine. mr. michaud: thank you, mr. speaker. at this time i'd like to yield
three minutes to the gentleman from virginia -- the gentleman from california, mr. takano. the speaker pro tempore: the gentleman is recognized for three minutes. mr. takano: i thank the gentleman from maine, the ranking member, for yielding time. mr. speaker, i rise today to support the veterans paralympic act, a bipartisan piece of legislation that would extend the funding for adaptive sport programs for disabled veterans. through the department of veterans affairs and the u.s. olympic committee, this joint program has provided sports and other athletic activities that helps speed up the rehabilitation process for our nation's heroes. by extending the funding through 2018 and improving access to adaptive sports programs, this legislation would provide the greatest opportunity for rehabilitation through sports our veterans have ever had. the sacrifice of these heroes is immeasurable. i believe that congress should be doing all it can to help
their rehabilitation process. i thank the representative from colorado, mr. coffman, for introducing this bill, and i look forward to its passage. thank you, mr. speaker. i yield back. the speaker pro tempore: the gentleman yields back. the gentleman from maine. mr. michaud: thank you, mr. speaker. at this time i'd like to yield three minutes to the gentlewoman from california, mrs. negrete mcleod. the speaker pro tempore: the gentlewoman is recognized for three minutes. mrs. negrete mcleod: i rise in support of h.r. 1402 that extends v.a. housing programs for homeless veterans. the california district which i represent is home to over 20,000 veterans. like the nation, homelessness among veterans is a serious problem in my district. it will take continued coordination between v.a. and local organizations to ensure that veterans are able to take advantage of housing assistance programs. as a member of the house v.a.
subcommittee on health, in august of this year i hosted a town hall with the v.a. and local organizations. over 200 veterans attended and signed up for v.a. veterans benefits for the very first time. this is a great example of better coordination in helping our veterans. thank you so much. i yield back. the speaker pro tempore: the gentlewoman yields back. the gentleman from maine. mr. michaud: thank you, mr. speaker. i'd like to once again thank chairman miller for his collaborative effort in bringing both these bills before the house today and his continued support to make sure we do everything we can to pass legislation that will help our veterans. i also want to thank the staff on both the majority and minority side for working so well together to get these bills before the floor. with that, mr. speaker, i urge my colleagues to support h.r. 1502 as amended. i yield back the balance of my time. the speaker pro tempore: the gentleman yields back the balance of his time. the gentleman from florida. mr. miller: thank you, mr. speaker. i, too, urge my colleagues to
support h.r. 1402 as amended. and yield back the balance of my time. the speaker pro tempore: the gentleman yields back the balance of his time. the question is, will the house suspend the rules and pass the bill h.r. 1402 as amended. so many as are in favor say aye. those opposed, no. in the opinion of the chair, 2/3 of those voting having responded in the affirmative, the rules are suspended -- the gentleman from florida. mr. miller: i ask for the yeas and nays. the speaker pro tempore: the yeas and nays are requested. all those in favor of taking this vote by the yeas and nays will rise and remain standing until counted. a sufficient number having arisen, the yeas and nays are ordered. pursuant to clause 8 of rule 20, put further proceedings on this question will be postponed. pursuant to clause 12a of rule 1, the chair declares the house in recess until approximately 4:00 p.m. today.
>> in america and in south africa, and in countries all around the globe we cannot allow our progress to cloud the fact that our work is not yet done. the troubles that follow the victory for universal franchise may not be as filled with dram ma and moral clarity as those that came before, but they are no less important. around the world today we still see children suffering from hunger and disease. we still see young people without a future. around the world today men and women are still imprisoned for
their political beliefs and still persecuted for what they look like and how they worship and who they are. that is happening today. and so we, too, must act on behalf of justice. we, too, must act on behalf of people. there are too many people who embrace madiba's legacy of reconciliation to passionately resist even modest reform that will challenge growing inequality and poverty. there are too many leaders who claim solidarity with madiba's struggle for freedom but do not ollow it for their own people. and there are too many of us, oo many of us on the sidelines
complacent and our voices must be heard. >> before speaking president obama shook hands with cuban president raul castro as he made his way down a line of world leaders gathered to honor nelson mandela. joining president obama on the 16-hour trip from washington for the ceremony from first lady michelle obama, president george w. bush and his wife laura, and former discriminate hillary rodham clinton. former presidents bill clinton and jim yea carter also attended the service. you can see the entire nelson mandela memorial tonight at 8:00 eastern. >> this is a train depot in plains, georgia, the oldest building here in plains. as you can imagine in 1976 the hustle and bustle of all activities during the campaign he would have tables and desks and phones going off and letters coming in and out of the area.
think rose lynn was here helping to run the campaign from the small building. this is where she helped organization the peanut brigade. it was an offshoot of the high neighbor campaign technique used during his run for governor. it was basically a way to get the word out about jimmy carter using volunteers going door to door shaking hands, giving out literature, and spreading the word. it was a method so effective that it helped him get elected to the presidency. >> watch our program on flared rosalyn carter on our website c-span.org slash first lady or see it saturday on c-span at 7:00 p.m. eastern. and monday we'll start our encore presentation of first lady season 2, edith roosevelt to grace coolidge. >> c-span, we bring public affairs events from washington directly to you, putting you in the room at congressional hearings, white house events, briefings, and conferences, and
offering complete gavel-to-gavel coverage of the u.s. house. all as a public service of private industry. we are c-span, created by the table tv industry 34 years ago, and funded by your local cable or satellite provider. now you can watch us in h.d. >> the economy in crisis organization held a panel discussion recently on trade agreements and presidential authority. the president's fast track authority expired in 2007. this allows a president to negotiate international agreements free as congressional amendments or filibuster. congress can vote for or against it. this discussion is about an hour and a half. >> good morning. welcome to the national press club. we'd like to start our program now since c-span3 is broadcasting this live and it's set up for 8:30. we realize some people are sort of still on their way due to the storm last night, and perhaps we'll have a few people walking
in while the program is going on. we'd like to get going. my name is les, vice chair of the customs committee. american association which is a cooperating entity in this program, and i'd like to welcome you this morning to our program called, do we need fast track, trade promotion authority? some of you may have seen a program last week on this same topic on c-span3. i watched it. they had a panel of the four former u.s. trade representatives, including mickey cantor and sue schwab and others. all of those prior u.s. trade representatives seemed to have similar views on fast track. today you're going to hear some different views from some distinguished representatives of the public interest community and the labor movement. our moderator today will introduce the speakers and i have the pleasure this morning to introduce our moderator, charlie block. charlie had a distinguished clear both in government and private industry. there 1971 to 1980 he served in
a series of diplomatic positions in the state department and then he joined the office of u.s. trade representative as the director of steel policy from 1980 to 1982. steel was a particularly hot issue in those days, some of you probably remember the voluntary restraint agreements. charlie then moved on to the post of deputy assistant you ustr for industry 1982 to 1983. and then was promoted to the post of assistant u.s. trade representative for industry where he served from 1983 to 1985. finally he finished out his distinguished clear at usgr as the assistant u.s. trade representative for multilateral trade negotiations from 1985 to 1988. fm was the period of the trade negotiations. charlie has a master's degree from the university of pennsylvania and has taught as an adjunct professor of business at the american university
school of business. it's a pleasure for me to turn over our program now to charlie. >> thank you, les, for that kind introduction. that's certainly more respect than old trade negotiators usually get and i'm grateful for that. aim grateful also to economy of crisis in the bar association for sponsoring this program and all of you who braved the ice storm to get here so early on a monday morning. i think your presence here is testimony to the timeliness and importance of the larger debate that is -- shaping up all across this town. and my experience at least all across our country. there's a lot of confusion among americans about what trade promotion authority really is, whether it is necessary or desirable. and the specific role that fast track authority is -- plays in the approval of trade
agreements. so to set the stage for this morning's discussion, i want to very briefly present the case being made by those who assert the fast track authority is an essential feature of american trade and economic policy. to take one prominent example, let me cite the five points that are advanced by the u.s. chamber of commerce to answer the question that they posed, why does america need trade promotional authority? the first three reasons are very familiar to anyone who follows trade debates. i won't go into any detail. they argue that number one, trade supports jobs and growth. number two, trade is vital to small business. and number three, trade agreements level the playing field. and then they get to the part that really is the core of the current controversy. i'll read these in their full. it's only a few bullet points each. reason number four, we can do more to seize the benefits of
trade. these are their points. to extend these benefits the u.s. has embarked on a bold new trade agenda that includes negotiation for the transpacific partnership with 11 other asia pacific countries. transatlantic trade and investment partnership with the european union, and the trade and services agreement with some 50 other countries. reason five, to do any of the above, they argue, america needs t.p.a. there are four points here. to finalize these agreements congress must approved trade promotional authority, t.p.a. the constitution gives the congress authority to regulate international trade, but it gives the president authority to negotiate with foreign governments. t.p.a. builds on this constitutional partnership by requiring the executive branch to consult extensively with congress. during negotiations while
assuring u.s. trading partners that agreements will receive an up or down vote at the end of the day. the last argument, every president since franklin d. roosevelt has had t.p.a., every president should have it. now, that's the base line case answering of clearly in the affirmative. it's my pleasure today to turn the microphone over to two distinguished speakers who have another take on the effectiveness and limitations of trade agreements and on the appropriate roles for the congress and the executive branch in setting trade objectives, conducting trade negotiations, and evaluating the results from those agreements. i'll do ladies first. lori wallic is a familiar figure among trade experts in washington. a graduate of wellesley and harvard law, she serves as director of public citizens global trade watch. whether or not you agree with, those who care about trade and globalization recognize the
depth of her knowledge and ability to translate abstreusel legal points into plain english. she's done us all a service by researching and writing a book called the rise and fall of fast track authority published earlier this year. it is being studied and analyzed in many congressional and lobbying offices these days. and tom buffin barringer is the president of the international association of machinists and aerospace workers, the iam, founded 145 years ago. tom is a member of the afl-cio industrial union council, he serves as vice president of the board of the international metal workers federation. in the past, he was a member of the treasury department's advisory committee for the international advisory -- monetary fund, and currently chairs the labor advisory committee. one of the many private sector advisory groups that are intended to provide the u.s.
trade representative and other agencies with advise on a broad range of trade negotiation and trade policy issues. we are truly fortunate to have two such distinguished panelists. we look forward to their presentations, followed by what i am sure will be a lively discussion. so with no further adid, tom, the floor is yours -- ado, tom, the floor is yours. >> thank you very much for kind introduction. i do want to clarify one point having served in the capacity of a member of the treasury department's advisory on the international monetary fund, that was the bad i.m.f. and i'm honored to still serve though it's been renamed industrial as vice president of the good i.m.f., the international metal orkers federation.
ladies and gentlemen, it's an honor to be here this morning. the i.a.m. represents several hundred thousand active and retired members in north america. our members work in a variety of industries, including aerospace, transportation, shipbuilding, wood working, defense, and electronics to name a few. i.a.m. members design, build, and assemble, and maintain the goods and services that keep the u.s. economy growing. and to keep the u.s. safe and secure. our members produce goods and services that are exported all over the world. while we believe in global trade, and we have seen irsthand its benefits, our members have also felt its harsh impact. we dream of a global economy that works for u.s. workers as well as workers throughout the world. sadly we have a long way to go
in order to make this a reality. for u.s. aerospace workers whose jobs have moved to mexico or china, for over 1,000 bangladeshy apparel workers who died at the plaza while earning roughly 18 cents an hour, for enslaved children working on cocoa plantations in the ivory coast, or for the millions of people who work every day for wages that are far below the poverty level the global economy has failed them. our nation's trade policy has contributed to this failure. it has led to trade agreements with countries like mexico which continue to persecute mexican trade unionists such as napoleon gomez. it has led to agreements with south korea where we have lost several thousand jobs so far,
and it has led to the trade agreement with colombia where despite labor action plan, trade union activists still fear for their lives. our national trade policy is leading us once again into a future where u.s. workers have no future. as i speak, reports continue to circulate that negotiators are approaching agreement on a new trade deal. the transpacific partnership, also known as t.p.p. the u.s. along with 11 other nations, including vietnam and brunei, will try to form a trade block that we believe will be faced on nafta's failed policies. if it is finalized, the dream of a global economy that works for the world's workers will become even more distant. yet t.p.p. is implemented, u.s. manufacturing may find itself on the endangered species list.
soon the full-court press will be on to pass t.p.p. proponents of t.p.p. will want to sidestep criticisms and concerns about the deal through the old framework of fast track by limiting congressional authority to reveal or review the deal. they will claim how the agreement will benefit our nation and support the creation of thousands of jobs. they will also argue that if we don't join the pact, we'll get left behind. they will undoubtedly resurrect their ridiculous claim that anyone who criticizes fast track authority and the t.p.p. is anti-trade. it they could not be more wrong. we are painfully aware how fast track authority in the past has been a precursor to trade
agreements with mexico, colombia and south korea. that have wreaked havoc on u.s.-mexican and colombia workers. fast track authority is very much a part of our nation's failed policy. a trade policy that is long overdue for a major overhaul. the i.a.m. firmly believes in a 21st century trade policy that focuses on workers and their communities. not the bottom line profit sheet of u.s. corporations who have no loyalty to the workers that made them so profitable. the 21st century trade policy that we believe in does not merely pay lip service to jobs when it is politically convenient. but it will in fact lead to the creation and maintenance of good jobs across industries, sectors, and geographical locations.
the 21st century trade policy that we advocate will not tolerate backroom deals which depend on keeping critical information from the public. it will also not grant foreign invetors greater rights than domestic companies. it will in no way interfere with national and local governments' ability to protect our health, worker safety, and social standards. it will make certain that no signatureor -- signatory country will manipulate its currentcy. -- curncy. last but not least our 21st century trade policy will once and for all manned torely require that countries who want to be a part of trade agreements with the u.s. recognize and effectively enforce fundamental human rights which include labor standards defined by the i.l.o.'s conventions.
they are eligible to sign a trade agreement with the united states. as i just mentioned it cannot be business as usual when negotiating trade deals. we continue to urge congress to consider undertaking the following activities. first, learn from our past mistakes. let's face it, grandiose prediction that is trade agreements will support hundreds have sands of u.s. jobs been plain wrong. we need to learn if what we have been before deciding where we need to go. isn't it time that we at least of trade actual impact agreements are having on all u.s. workers before we consider yet another trade deal. by fixing the
method that our government uses to predict the numbers of jobs that will be impacted by trade agreements. that method has been wildly inaccurate. just ask any manufacturing worker whose job has moved to mexico or whose mages have been kept low under by fixing the th his or her job will move to mexico. they would be the first that would question the accuracy of the predict -- predictor that nafta would support 200,000 jobs because chances are high that their job was one of the nearly 700,000 u.s. jobs that were lost to mexico by 2010. 20 years ago today nafta was signed. wrong estimates don't just involve nafta. according to the government the u.s.-south korea trade agreement would support 70,000 u.s. jobs. in reality according to the economic policy institute in a year after the agreement took effect the increasing trade
deficit with south korea has cost the u.s. at least 40,000 jobs, most in manufacturing. any impact study must be straightforward, reliable, and provide specific information on each trade agreement's impact on u.s. jobs by industry, geography , wages, and benefits. this precise information cannot e gleaned by merely estimating job numbers. from export valuations the way it is currently done. congress and the american people have every right to know how trade agreements have been and ill be affecting their jobs. secondly, congress must assert its role in choosing our trade partners. congress should define specific conditions that must be met for any potential trade agreement partner. these conditions should include a number of factors including an
examination of weather a country currently recognize -- whether a country currently recognizes and enforces fundamental human rights, like the right to form a union and engage in collective bargaining. reflected by the i.l.o. conventions and juries prudens. it -- jurisprudence. it should also include basic information on whether a country manipulates its currency. violates environmental standards, uses subsidies, or demands transfers of production and technology to implement its own industrial policy. third, negotiation objectives laid out by congress must be mandatory and certified. current fast track authority simply lists negotiation objectives without any requirement that each objective be met. if negotiation objectives are last labor a long
chapter is -- that is based on i.l.o. jurisprudence, then the deal should not be eligible for fast track authority. signatory countries must also certify that they have met all of the requirements provided under the trade agreement prior to passage. there are simply no excuse that colombia was able to sign on to an agreement while human rights violations continue. each member of congress and relevant committees should have a significant role in determining negotiation objectives. for thely, negotiations must be built on transparency. due to the expedited nature of fast track, it is important that private groups have an opportunity to provide their advice on proposed trade agreements. while most members of the public are not privy to the specific areas of trade negotiations, the
ustr relies on the trade advisory committee system to obtain advice from individuals in the private sector. the trade act of 1974 sought to achieve a mechanism for creating a strong and unified national trade policy by providing opportunities for diverse trade impacted groups to engage in meaningful and effective consultations with government officials. unfortunately, the trade advisory committee system is failing miserably to achieve this goal. groups like labor have either been underrepresented or not represented at all in the advisory committee system. the most seriously deficient level of trade advisory system is the third tiered level concerning technical and detailed secretary yorl and industrial matters. indeed, despite statutory language indicating otherwise,
not one labor representative is a member of the 16 industrial technical advisory committees. nown as itacs. for that matter not one labor representative has been elected to serve on the manufacturing council, and no representative from the manufacturing union participates on the president's export council. the federal trade advisory committee system is instrumental in providing a mechanism for the to ate sector community advise our trade minorityors -- negotiators on general and specific areas of trade. it is particularly critical in view of how fast track authority has been delegated to the administration. the exclusion of labor from itacs should no longer be tolerated. if 2 does continue -- it does continue, it will be to the
detriment of the development and implementation of our national trade policy. this is something we cannot afford. our old trade policy is broken beyond repair. u.s. workers in their communities deserve so much more than the empty promises of past and proposed trade deals. they have immediate action that will result in good and decent jobs here at home. the stakes have never been higher to get it right. resurrecting the old framework of fast track authority is not needed. not wanted, and will make it easier to continue the failed trade policies of the last century. with reports that t.p.p. is nearing completion and our steadfast opposition to it, this may very well be our last opportunity to save u.s. manufacturing and ensure a sustainable and prosperous
future for the next generation. thank you very much. >> i also want to thank the sponsors for inviting me to participate and say good morning to everybody. i'm going to if he cuss a little bit on the history of the actual fast track and trade negotiating authority to complement what president buffenbarger outlined about the failure of the outcomes of that particular procedure for creating u.s. trade agreements. a lot of the members of congress are now in office, in fact almost all of them, weren't here before 1974. which is when fast track was first established. so like my grandmother used to
say, hoover for vacuum cleaner, fast track has become synonymous for trade authority. and in fact it's not the only form. in fact it's anomaly compared to 200 years of u.s. history. so the history of u.s. trade authority goes back to the boston tea party. the u.s. was founded in a trade war. when the colonists decided they weren't going to have any more of those taxes, those taxes were tariffs, it was a trade fight. it was the king of england signed the unilaterally impozzed tariffs on trade, tea among other things, to generate money for his wars. so when the founders wrote the constitution, they very explicitly made sure that congress, the body closest to the people, had exclusive authority over trade. . they they wanted to make sure that the executive, the king,
couldn't just unilaterally impose some trade policy that favored a friend or a foreign industry, so when the founders wrote the constitution in article 1-a, congress had exclusive authority over foreign commerce and setting tariffs. nixon in 1974, came in and with fast track up ended 200 years of congress' control of trade policy that the founders wisely created in the constitution. but also fast track opened a door to what is often called diplomatic legislative. as well as giving the executive branch a new and enormous role and control over trade agreements, fast track for the first time ever authorized u.s. negotiators to actually set rules in trade negotiations on issues that had nothing to do with trade. it was authority to negotiate binding rules on everything from food safety to how your government, state and federal,
can spend your tax dollars in procuring goods and services. for instance, threatening buy are america. patents, immigration, all issues is congress' jurisdiction. now, a thing that's worth note -- noting, fast track has only actually been in effect for five of the last 19 years, because after nafta and the world trade organization demonstrated the threat to our country, of job offshoring, floods of unsafe imports and a tax in our domestic laws of this diplomatic legislating, its appetite for fast track. so this anomaly created by nixon has been extremely unpopular in the last 20 years in congress. that makes it not that surprising that as a candidate, president obama announced replace fast track with a process that includes criteria
determining appreciate negotiating partners -- something president buffenbarger mentioned -- and they play a strong role in the international economic policy and any future agreements we pursue to amend existing agreements. oh, were it so. sadly, now that the president is actually seeking trade authority, he's not seeking the new 21st century trade authority we need to get trade agreements that work for most americans, but sadly he's going back trying to revive nixon's tired, inappropriate, dangerous, old fast track. the question now should be what form of trade authority is appropriate for the 21st century, not the boring battle over yes or no on fast track. that relic of the 1970's that should be sent to the smithsonian. the issues are questions fundamentally of government, checks and balances, separation of powers, the roles of
government in the era of globalization. these are issues that are not democratic or republican. so it's not a shocker that actually 151 house democrats would join 30 house republicans writing a letter -- yes, they were together. that's probably news. what isn't news is they were together saying that congress ust maintain its constitutional authority over trade. now, in researching this book, "the rise and fall of fast track trade authority," which we were able to do thanks to a dangerous grant from the sloan foundation, we went into the bowels of the library of congress to the pre-electronic record and dug up all the records on trade authority since the founding of the country. and what we found were first of all five totally separate mechanisms styles of trade authority over the years and, number two, a constant set of themes. congress would experiment in giving a little bit of authority to the executive
branch, and then the executive branch would grab it, run away and congress would take back the authority. and every few decades since literally 1898, congress has created a new mechanism for trade authority to replace an old one as it got outdated until now. there were two huge ships of fast track to jump through many decades of history right to 1974. number one, it let negotiators making trade policy suddenly negotiate what are called nontariff issues. but we think of those as our domestic, environmental, food safety, financial, zoning, land use laws through trade negotiations and the product sector advisory system. that's the 600 private advisors that president buffenbarger mentioned, almost all of them
represent corporate interests. there are lonely 19 labor representatives sprinkled in there, two environmentalists, one consumer group and no partridge or a pear tree. seriously, this is a totally unbalanced system with 600 corporate advisors telling our negotiators what we -- what they ought to be doing. how can they affect our domestic policy? because the binding rule in all of our current trade agreements is the following -- signatory countries shall ensure the confirmity of all domestic laws, regulations and administrative procedures. that is to say that all existing and future u.s. laws must be conformed to the terms in the trade agreements. and consider the agreement now that president obama is seeking fast track for the transpacific partnership. 29 chapters. the text just of the nontariff stuff is the size of a very large phone book. and only five of the chapters are about trade.
24 chapters of rewriting u.s. law through the back door of secretive closed door, 600 corporate advisor influenced trade negotiations. this form of diplomatic legislating and then international preemption has been used by democratic and republican presidents since nafta and w.t.o. is, for instance, folks, how we got an extension of medicine patents that increased medicine prices enormously when we had to shift from a 17-year monopoly from the big pharmaceutical companies to 20. did congress say no to that? repeatedly congress said no. they sided with us consumers. but then that was written into the world trade organizations and we had to conform our laws. did congress agree to lock in h-1-v visas? not in their own. that was in the w.t.o. too. so we had to conform our immigration law.
or how about meat and poultry safety? think about all the meat that comes into the country meets u.s. standards? that was true before nafta and w.t.o. we had to rewrite those laws to conform to a rule that requires us to import things that are equivalent, determined by the other country. etc., etc., etc. now, what's up with fast track politically is directly related to the attack on congress' jurisdiction authority and the negative outcomes these trade agreements have had for the public. since nafta, fast track has become exceedingly unpopular. so after nafta passed, president clinton was unable to ever get fast track trade authority again. an important fact the congressional history is that actually congress, on a bipartisan majority in the house of representatives, voted down clinton's attempt to get fast track in 1998. he tried in 1997.
didn't happen. he tried in 1998, 171 democrats and 71 republicans said i'm sticking with the founders. i'm not giving away my constitutional authority. and that was the end of president clinton having fast track. he had it only two of his eight years. but funny thing. the man implemented 130 trade agreements, including some really big ones through normal procedures. trade agreements that are about trade didn't have a problem in congress. trade agreements that are about back door attacks on u.s. law and special incentives to offshore jobs, knows require the legislative losuron that is fast track, that is to say agreements that don't work for us require some way around congress. and that is yet one more reason why fast track is inappropriate and should be dust binned. the last delegation of fast track was obtained by george w. bush after clinton didn't get
fast track, it took bush two years and enormous amount of political capital to pass fast track by one vote in the house of representatives in 2002 in the middle of the night and watching people nod in pain after they stopped the congressional clock. we're talking manipulation, harassment, hell. two years of work and one vote passage of fast track. that delegation of fast track ended in 2007. president obama is now going to try, he says, to get fast track again. what exactly is fast track and how does it work? this is the story. once fast track, were it to be passed by congress, is in effect, congress delegates over to the president the following five separate authorities that previously were in the authority of congress. one, to unilaterally pick our trade partners.
so, for instance, that's how the heck we got colombia, a country we never should have been negotiating a trade agreement with as they are the number one site of unionist assassinations in the world. one country more than all the other countries together of killing of unionists, our trade partner. only because fast track allowed george w. bush unilaterally to pick that country. pick the country, set the terms. fast track has negotiating objectives. as we heard, they are not enforceable. the fast track that created nafta and w.t.o. had negotiating objective requiring mandatory labor standards. are there labor standards in nafta and w.t.o.? no. because the negotiators under fast track can do whatever they want and still, the agreement goes down the legislative losuron. they were able to sign the agreement with the guarantee that when congress finally got its post hoc rubber stamp
moment, the terms were the executive branch writes the legislation. this is the only bill the executive branch writes. this is not the annual budget show or the president's budget is wheelbarrowed in right to recycling. they writes this bill and it goes right into the hopper. it does not get committee markups. it does not get committee amendments. it goes right to the floor and then congress puts on the voting handcuffs. and when a vote comes up they must vote yes or no, no amendments, maximum 20 hours of debate. oh, and the final deal. the other key constitutional authority, article 1-5, congress writes its own rules, congress loses control when the vote happens. 90 days after the white house writes the bill, after signing the agreement, after picking the country all by themselves, congress must vote, like it or not. it is privileged on the floor. that system is how we got into nafta and w.t.o.
but a key fact about fast track, to quickly debunk some myths is, number one, it is not how we even normally do trade agreements since 1974. it has only been used 16 times in the history of our country. major votes like china pntr, free trade agreements like the agreement with jordan, were passed without it. number two, it has not been a key to expanding trade. in fact, since we started using fast track, the u.s. trade deficit has exploded. since nafta and w.t.o., we have lost over five million of our manufacturing jobs, 40,000 factories gone and real wages down across the economy. in fact, true audit, our export growth to countries we do not have fast track trade agreements with is actually 38% higher than those with which we do have the fast track agreements. myth number three, every
president since roosevelt has had t.p.a. warning, trick acronym. t.p.a. also is an acronym for trade promotion authority. the cynical renaming of fast track. reciprocal the trade authority act. and that is a mechanism president roosevelt had that only pertained to tariffs. yes, it is true from 1934, the reciprocal tariff act had tariff proclamation authority, t.p.a., totally different thing than the t.p.a. that equals fast track. truth, a handful of presidents since nixon has had fast track. and now for the politics. the question is, will this house of representatives give president obama this extraordinary authority to push through the transpacific partnership, an agreement congress has had no access to, no observer status for, that
has been negotiated with the executive branch acting as if fast track were in place and the legislative handcuffs were on? nd all indications are, not so fast. bipartisan opposition is growing. and if folks want to hear the history in more detail, read the history in more detail, please get a copy of my book at globaltradewatch @tradewatch.org. [applause] >> i think it would work best if i try to stand and take your questions but i think probably the panelists should stay seated so we don't have a lot of commotion. that way i can see the whole room. if you have a question or a brief comment, we would like you to raise your hand, i'll recognize you, we'll bring you the mic. if you would identify yourself before speaking, that would be a terrific assistance to
everybody. so who had' like to go first -- so who'd like to go first? >> i guess appropriate for you and for tom, these advisory committees are supposedly having influence over our trade policy -- aren't we just window dressing in so many words, that the executive branch does what it damn well pleases without regard to either congress or industry or labor or anybody else? >> you go first. >> i would agree with the premise of that question that it's window dressing. in previous administrations, it was rare to have meetings of the advisory committee to the ustr's office. it improved somewhat in the authority tenure of citizen
schwab. and when president obama took office with the really the encouragement and guidance of hilda solis, secretary of labor, she was very insistent that the trade rep have these meetings at a more frequent basis. so we did meet maybe twice a year, but at the meetings it was usually to plead with the administration to cease and desist on some of the directions that they were taking on trade policy. and in fact we came away pretty much as though the meeting never occurred. >> let me add -- since i left the government in 1988, i have had no direct involvement with advisory committees. in fact, the terms of their involvement limits their ability -- they're supposed to represent sectors, but they are
really handcuffed in terms of discussing issues with them because they're sworn to secrecy on so many points. i just argue from my own experience in the 1980's, it was a simpler time, but we use the advisory committees differently. e met a lot. my policy was to meet with everybody every time they were in washington whether they wanted it or not. then if they invited me to their annual meetings, i'd go out there. we paid special attention to agriculture. there was great skepticism, and the antidote for that was enormous outreach. i don't see that happening right now and i think that's to the detriment not only of the politics of this issue but also the substance of it. i think the administration -- not just this one -- but previous ones too have made a big mistake and it doesn't have
to be that way. >> the one thing to think about the committee, because it's not necessarily that they're listened to, but the participants in them have special access to information that the public and the press does not. and that is to say they get security clearance and they're allowed to see -- well, depending which administration, the actual negotiating texts. there seems to be some of that going on regardless of what the official policy is. and that ability to actually see what's on the table, to shape the document that the u.s. is going to submit is all of our demands in negotiation is actually extremely impactful even in the end if they are not listened to because having that information knows you what's at hand, what's at stake, what to lobby for, etc. it's information that all of us will live with the results are denied as well as this ongress. >> we'll do you and the person
on your left next. >> ok. thank you very much. thank you. this is a great discussion. i'm an independent public policy consultant on trade issues. and i want to ask lori first to elaborate a little bit on the comment that the clinton administration was able to implement -- i don't know if i wrote this down correctly. did you say 130 trade agreements without fast track authority? and i'm interested in how those are defined. and then for both of you, there's a lot of press lately about the w.t.o. having finally reached an agreement in bali, a package of fairly modest agreements -- although i haven't seen any text yet -- but i'm wondering what you think of that. is that the type of trade agreement that we will see implemented here without fast track authority since no one seems to be talking about fast
track authority for bali? thank you. >> the source for the 123 trade agreements is charlene the united states trade representative who served for major chunk of the clinton administration and she said that actually i think in a speech here at the national press club in describing why it wasn't an impediment for her to get trade expansion under way to not have fast track. the -- now, there is a congressional record referenced 138 trade agreements by congressman becerra from the ways and means committee. i'm not sure where he got those. if you look at the floor debate in 2001 in the original bush fast track house vote, you can check out that. and he lists a bunch of the countries that he has in mind. just f.y.i. as far as the w.t.o. agreement, again, in a way that is not going to help congress get more enthusiastic about being -- about sharing its constitutional trade authority
with this executive branch, the administration's original position so far is they're not bringing it to congress. they negotiated, they're not bringing it to a for. it's remarkably impure yuss. we'll see what happens. i'm sure will help congress' enthusiasm to give away that authority to be treated that way up front. that being said, there's been susm a bunch of hoopla about very exciting announcement that could come any day that senator baucus and congressman camp might agree on fast track. except senator bachus and congressman camp have agreed on -- senator baucus and congressman camp have agreed on fast track. there was quite enormous opposition. to me what's news about the fast track situation in the u.s. is why these two guys who are the chairmen of the committees of jurisdiction haven't introduced any trade authority legislation despite
their saying since easter of last year that they had a deal almost ready and it was going to go in at any moment. and so all these months have gone by which begs the question -- given what the house looks like on fast track, assuming the bill goes in tomorrow, there are four days left in the house. nothing is going to get done. so next year when we're going to have crazy season kick in over the summer over the mid term elections, in six months is the republican house going to give the democratic president they just really love and respect fast track trade authority that took president bush two years, incredible blood, sweat and tears and lots of political deals to get accomplished by one vote? so to me what's fairly news worthy is the prospect there won't be any fast track. not just for the w.t.o. deal, which won't bring congress to ote, but perhaps in general.
>> i'll respond to the concern about the announced agreement or at least the pretense of it with the w.t.o. having been instrumental in leading a large delegation of 10,000 machinists to seattle when the w.t.o. met there, i am skeptical anything that includes in its scription w.t.o., and having not seen anything yet in a society where our government knows everything about us, we can't find but very little about it, i really can't comment with any accuracy on it. but i am a skeptic, have become more so as the older i get with the issues of international rade agreements. >> thanks very much.
my name is brian dabs with international trade today. so some congressional leaders over recent months have, for instance, senator levin, have touted fast track as potential mechanism to deliver greater congressional authority. in allied and trade objectives. mrs wallach, considering the five policies that you just enumerated that simply advocates congressional authority to the executive branch, how do you think lawmakers such as mr. levin are reconciling that? if i might add one more thing, although there has been vocal opposition to fast track through the letters you referenced, there very well may be sufficient support. what do you think the reason for that support? do you think lawmakers are coerced or is there corporate subservients or what's going on? >> well, first of all, in the situation with congressman levin, congressman levin has given lots of speeches
describing his position and concerns about trade authority. i obviously will let him speak for himself. again, in the news worthy department is that in fact after a year of negotiations that were called the big four negotiations between the ranking members and the chairs of the ways and means and finance committees is quite news worthy that it is only chairman camp and chairman baucus who may allegedly finally this time come up with fast track legislation which is to say it's not clear where the ranking member, senator hatch, a longtime fast track supporter, is in on this about to be announced deal. nor apparently is congressman levin. and from congressman levin's speeches, it sounds like he's on the right track which is he wants to have a new trade authority. it sounds like he's the big guy among the four that it's way overdue to try and replace fast track. we need a new mechanism for trade authority.
and so what he's talking about isn't the old fast track. he's talking about what is the new trade promotion authority for the 21st century that can put a steering wheel and an emergency brake in congress. now whether he may propose as an alternative is going to satisfy those needs and remedy those problems remains to be seen when he comes up with something. but what in his speeches he's talked about is exactly what president buffenbarger was talking about which is you wouldn't get the expedited procedure. you wouldn't get any of those abilities to have congress at the end game not have amendments unless upfront congress had a much greater role, including to certify that when it said objectives for negotiations were were actually met. so trying to make those objectives mandatory and get any favorable treatment on the back end, having congress tell the negotiators what to do and make sure they actually do it
before they then give them that next step. and something along those lines is actually the last chapter in my fast track book is how you have to replace fast track with something appropriate by giving congress opportunities along the way to actually say, yes, you did it, or no, you didn't, back to the table with you, so they actually, congress, have control over the substance, not he executive branch. >> let me just add before we got to pat, let me add to lori's last point -- over here. from a negotiator's point of view, you're a lot better, you're a lot more effective if you're backed up by this kind of a mandate. we had that. i was lucky enough in the 1980's to have lots of congressional support for what we were doing with respect to steel and for that matter launching the uruguay round. that made it easier for us to negotiate.
we knew when to say no. when the situation was muddled as it is now, when the directions are so unclear, when the process is so secretive, the negotiators are at great risk. that's the price we have to pay for the inattention of appropriate mechanisms. pat malloy. >> thank you very much. great program. the question i have is related to the exchange rate issue. my understanding is that we don't normally address exchange rates in these free trade agreements and that when free trade agreement can be done, if the other country, for example, devalue its currency, it would make our exports to that country much more difficult to get in there because they would be increased in price and then make exports from that country to the united states a lot cheaper. and both of these trends will feed the trade deficit. i think since fast track has gone into effect, we've run
about $10 trillion worth of trade deficit since 1974. it's my further understanding that members of congress, a majority in both the house and the senate, have written to the administration asking them to address exchange rates in the t.p.p. is that being done in the t.p.p. negotiation? is that being discussed in terms of whether to give the president trade promotion authority that these issues should be discussed and included in trade agreements? >> who wants to take that? >> we have certainly had among the ranks of the labor community those very same concerns and those discussions, whether it's being addressed in the rounds of t.p.p. negotiations, i can't answer not being at the table. but we find the same level of concern about this, and the
history speaks volumes about the unwillingness or the refusal to make such conversations on exchange rates or currency manipulations a very serious part of the talks that go on in these negotiations. >> i want to reiterate, we have no idea whether they've dealt with the issue because the process is so secretive. but from my snooping around the negotiations, and i have a team on the ground right now in singapore at the t.p.p. minute steerial, it appears the -- tin streial, it appears they have not raised the issue. keep in mind what that means, 230 house republicans, which means a bunch of democrats and republicans agreed on something, 60 senators a veto override majority, got together and said, we're congress, we have constitutional authority over trade. the one thing all of us actually agree on is you have
to put currency manipulation disciplines in the t.p.p. because it includes a bunch of countries that manipulate their currency. and the executive branch is considering the negotiations basically saying, hmm, did you hear something from congress? best we can tell, they have not even raised the issue. and those letters were put forward in june, and they're supposed to sign the agreement -- though they're not going to as folks have seen. look at the huffington post this morning. leaks. showing on what's going on at t.p.p. but that's the level of dismissal of what has got congress upset about fast track. that goes back to the question of why would they think about it -- about giving it away. these trade agreements are like the corporate christmas tree. what is one vote that in one foul swoop can have the u.s. chronic offshoring manufacturing companies? the agribusiness mow nop lists,
big pharma, big tobacco, mining and oil, all united with all their lobby dollars and all their lobbyists, it is a so-called trade agreement that isn't about trade that influences through the back door their agenda. and wall street too. financial deregulation in these agreements. so there's enormous power against the people's will and the constitutional empowerment of congress to have fast track make it possible to ram, railroad through congress these backwards, so-called trade agreements. so it's not as if it's a done deal even with this huge opposition that's bubbled up that fast track won't happen. but i suspect that if the public is speaking to their members of congress and those members of congress, seeing how the past trade agreements are going to work, want to keep their jobs and not be the next pink slip casualty, the prospect of fast track getting to the house can really be diminished. on the currency issue, the one
point i make goes to the korea agreement that president buffenbarger raised. so that agreement has been in effect for 18 months. a lot of members of congress said there had to be currency disciplines in that agreement. because korea has a history of currency manipulation. it's one of the country that r -- we said is a currency manipulator. executive branch said, nah, not going to do it. sorry, congress. what's happened? 18 months of that agreement, not just have we had a huge flood of more imports from korea, we've seen our exports drop 9%. we have a 40% bigger trade deficit with korea in 18 months of one more of these agreements. and currency is the biggest part of it. half the tariff cuts aren't even implemented. >> pat, let me add to that, too. you he know, about two years fore the last phase of the
korean t.a. talks, according to the peterson institute numbers, the most undervalid currency in the world was the korean yuan. was significantly more undervalued than the chinese. as they were negotiating, this is what countries do, of course, as they were negotiating, they reduced that from about 50% undervaluation to about 5%. now they're under heavy pressure from their export industries who are very powerful in korea, of course, they're under pressure to increase again the undervaluation. the same dynamic that's happened in japan where when the yen hit 79 to the dollar, there was a great outcry from the export-oriented industries in japan. and the response to that by one means or another, the government has moved the yen rate to about 101 -- last time i checked last week. that's obviously to benefit the
export industry. as lori points out, it kills our exports. that dynamic is left unaddressed by any trade agreement. and i think lori is correct. as far as anybody knows -- i check on the hill on this all the time -- the treasury and the ustr have refused to even raise this issue of the t.p.p. which is supposed to set the basic rules for trade agreements for the rest of this century. so not to do it now is really to commit, not to do it for a long time. if there's ever an opportunity to address this issue, it's got to be in the t.p.p. next question. in the back. >> hi. alice with featured story news. i wonder if you could expand more on the recently leaked documents and what's important in there. and also, anything else you can tell us from what's happening this week in singapore? >> ok. you're the leaker. >> i'm the analyst of the
leaked texts. the leaker remains unknown. this is with reference to two documents that leaked yesterday and are now on wicky leaks on -- wikileaks and on the front page of the huffington post which is a memo from one of the 13 countries involved in the t.p.p. describing as they're going into this alleged end game deal negotiation of ministers, trade ministers what the circumstances are and then a chart remarksably that has all the positions of all the countries on all the outstanding issues. there are some key things that are worth noting about the leaks. number one is overarchingly how far the countries are from agreement, thankfully, given what the chart shows is at stake. as far as things that would
undermine all of our futures. and the second overarching thing i thought was interesting was the can you think who is the source of the memo writes about how they need to very carefully manage the outcomes of this big ministriial meeting in singapore less the entire world thinks the entire process is in trouble, given the t.p.p. has now missed its third deadline in three years, likely, according to this memo? there is no way to make a real deal so should we announce a deal and pretend there's a deal or should we admit there isn't a deal, how do we manage that? and then on the substance, i think the most telling issues were, one, sadly, the united states is pushing a really outrageous big pharmaceutical company agenda of patent extensions, data exclusivity, a tax on national health care, medicine pricing boards that
would really not only deny people in the other countries access to affordable medicines but also would undermine some of the improvements we've seen our country recently on trying to get medicine prices down. that's really egregious to be doing that through the back door. the good news is the u.s. has totally isolated, except for japan, it's japan and u.s. pushing this agenda to the other countries. the second thing that's telling is the u.s. and japan are in could he hoots trying to expand the investor state, investor privileges regime which lets foreign countries skirt domestic laws in courts and attack domestic laws demanding compensation from us taxpayers for any domestic law or policy that they think undermines their expected future profits. this is how eli lilly is suing the canadian government of medicine patents, how the big tobacco companies are suing australia for compensation, etc. and under that regime, a lot of countries are concerned about
existing rules. the u.s. is pushing. so it could cover any contract the u.s. government would have with a foreign corporation. national lands they lease out, mining projects, running tunnels, bridges, ports. it's crazy. wouldn't go to u.s. court. would go to a tribunal of three private attorneys meeting under u.n. and world bank rules who could then be empowered to rewrite our treasury. so the third thing that was really revealing is that japan, despite setting as a condition for getting in the talks, that they would negotiate on all subjects, is refusing to negotiate market access for five key agricultural products. and that's just an interesting development. the memo says something like someone needs to talk to the prime minister in japan and make sure he gets his instructions right because this is stalling everything. a fourth worrysome thick is the u.s. is pushing for financial regulation. every other country, drug japan, is on the other side.
the -- including japan, is on the other side. they said you can't use capital rules, which is a macro-- a flood of hot currency comes in, you want to stop it. or there is a rate in your currency and you want to freeze it. the international monetary fund says it's a good tool and the u.s. wants to basically forbid the use of that and think the fifth big issue is what's not in there. so the u.s. congress has been really clear there needs to be enforceable labor standards, enforceable environmental standards, discipline in state owned enterprises when they're operating in this country and none of that is agreed. in fact, the state owned enterprise chapter, the environment chapter and the peant on medicine chapter is apparently in a total shamble and the other countries are so far rejecting the u.s. demands on those key issues. >> tom, do you want to add something? >> lori has covered all the bases. i don't have access to the leaks as lori does, so i'll
defer to her. it's clearly evident in short simple terms that the members of the union that i'm privileged to serve understand our government is slowly but surely surrendering -- we're negotiating the terms of surrender to the rest of the world. we call them trade deals. we believe in trade. we understand the value of that, but to have it done in fair terms instead of free terms and now it's not even in free terms is a surrender agreement and that's the -- going to be the battle line that we'll be arching up against. >> i just wanted to make sure, when the administration comes in to persuade congress to pass these agreements, mr.
buffenbarger, did you say they deposit the growth in jobs based on exports but they don't look at the loss of jobs based on the imports that are going to result from these agreements? in other words, we may get 40,000 jobs because we're going to get better access to the other guy's market but we may lose 60,000 because the other guy gained better access to our market, and so the total would be a loss of 20,000, are you saying that they on the deposit the 40,000 gain and not the other? >> we have yet to see any deposit the loss of the jobs. we only hear -- aerospace is a good example. i'll use a real-life example. in selling boeing aircraft to china. china will say we want to buy 00 triple sevens, we'll say.
and for that you're going to have to do, under the trade arrangements we have, some production here in china. and boeing will say, that's going to create -- to sell those 100 airplanes, yeah, we may move some of that production there then, but for the overall order of planes, we're going to be hiring folks in seattle and portland, wichita, to build those planes. to make that order and get it in on time. and those -- that 100th airplane gets delivered. and china will say, we want to buy another 100. but it's going to require some production shift to china. they never sent back the production that was traded, exchanged for the first 100 planes. we slowly but surely transfer the capabilities of building a complete airplane in china.
they're launching a new airplane that looks like a 737. it's never told that -- never makes its way -- we know from experience, but it never makes its way from government sources to the public consumption that we have traded away jobs and traded -- and gave away technology. and once it's out, you can't recover it. and then they become your biggest competitor. and in the way they manipulate their own currencies, we can't compete against that. o when i used the term earlier that we're ultimately giving up surrender documents to make it more feasible, to make it for palatable, to make it more legal to do, that's real life, that's what we see. so employment in key industries
is in jeopardy. have really impacted it and they get away under t.p.p. it gets even worse. i don't know what it's going to take for the american public to really wake up. maybe quit using the acronym of t.p.p. it sounds in the world i come from, representing a large number of auto mechanics, it sounds like s.t.p. or some additive to oil for car engines. we need to start using terms in the general discussion that tell people this is a serious thing and it's a job killer for you. >> yes, sir. >> well, just to follow up on that. boeing, of course, loved giving away the 777 technology to china and the jobs.
can we put it -- let's put a number on it. just for that big deal -- and it was a big deal -- how many jobs got lost from the u.s. when boeing gave away the technology -- china's demand and gave away the technology on the aircraft? >> they -- china -- on the 777, i used that as an example. it was really 737. nd so when you produce tuesday dge and wing -- fuselage and wing -- a fuselage is a seat and restroom -- small seats, by the way. the wings are the critical technology and once that's gone, once they develop and master the skills, so the jobs that travel with it are traded out to a place like seattle and those jobs never come back.
now we have created a new boeing f the 737, and has understood when you let the wing technology leave you pay a terrible price. this has new wing technology. so far we're able to protect that somewhat. now with new -- other new aircraft coming online, we're going to be in the fight of our lives to preserve that technology here in the united states. i might add, a lot of the technology and the design for commercial aircraft found its and that's e r&d, sponsored by the u.s. taxpayer. and i've always had the question, when does the u.s. taxpayer then, when we commercialize a defense product, when does the taxpayer realize a return on the investment?
and today i could tell you we never had return on the investment. so that's why people should be concerned. we still have the capabilities in this country of great engineering, like no one else on earth, and -- but when we do engineer it we are too quick to give it away for short-term corporate profit. >> let me add -- it's a different point but it may help flush out the last two comments, i think. the -- to the extent that we have an arctic lated national trade objective from the administration, it's in the form of the national export initiative, the president's intention to double exports within five years and i'd like to get a few figures on the table to put that in some perspective and i think it ties
in the last two comments. when i arrived in washington in 1971, u.s. exports were $60 billion. u.s. imports were $61 billion, and there was a minor panic going on about our trade problem. so our $1 billion trade deficit in 1971 amounted to about, what, 1.5% of our exports. so since then we are -- we've doubled our exports. actually five -- going on now six times. so that exports last year were $2.2 trillion. imports were $2.7 trillion. our trade deficit amounted to over 20% of our exports. so i would say anybody who has logic ard for history, or arithmetic, should look at those numbers and question the premise, which is clear from the -- for example, the chamber of commerce of what trade is. trade is exports, as they're
talking about it. that's what the administration is talking about it. but history tells you can't get there from here. you can't actually improve our economic performance by doubling exports unless you pay attention to the rest of the picture. that's part of what tom has been trying to say. that's part of what lori has been trying to say. i think it's one of the things the administration and previous administrations honestly have really resisted. it's harder work but it serves the national interest. other comments? questions? yes, jo ann. >> yes. wondering what all of you might think about how trade has changed not only our balance of trade but the way the composition of trade has changed and the whole landscape of trade agreements have
changed because it's not just the united states that's been negotiating trade agreements but just about everybody else, and with the w.t.o. having lost effectiveness, at least until these last few days in trade negotiations, there have been so many regional, bilateral agreements negotiated and under way. how does that impact united states industry, labor, how should we address that? and then on the composition of trade, one frequently hears these days a much larger percentage of trade now is in components and not finished goods and that we need to be able to have access to global supply chains in order to have a competitive export sector. how does u.s. trade policy fit within that context? thank you.
>> well, first of all, one of the most transformational developments was the change between 200 years of trade agreements, which dealt with tariffs, cutting border taxes and limits on the amount of stuff, raising quotas, and then nafta and w.t.o. in the mid 1990's which became effectively vehicles to deliver an entire agenda of nontrade policies from extensions of patents, gap -- the general agreement of tariffs and trade didn't have, limits on food safety. it just had the good old trade business of cutting border taxes and saying you can sell more of it in each country. so one of the biggest transformations which came hand in glove with fast track was the ability to effectively for u.s. agreements to get hijacked into these trojan horse mechanisms. and with that came the enormous controversy that's now built in
the u.s. public and in our congress about trade agreements. i suspect if they were just about tariffs, we wouldn't be having a big debate about trade authority or about the trade agreements. it's all the other stuff. i mean, it's investment rules that promote offshoring. the investment rules in nafta and the other f.t.a.'s literally make it safer, less costly for companies to move offshore with their production. those are policy decisions that i think would be very hard to get to congress in a normal way. so i think that's one of the biggest changes. there's always been regional and bilateral agreements. in fact, if you look at the history of trade, most every agreement going back a long time was regional or bilateral. of the anomaly was the idea a global agreement. what happened with the w.t.o. of the highly anticipated -- i don't know if i would say --
the most recent w.t.o. ministiral with delegates chucking things at each other's heads and signing a final deckleration. now, at the beginning of the w.t.o., there were several big multilateral agreements that were agreed. communications, financial services. so it's just wrong. it's been in the press but it's just wrong that this is the first thing that w.t.o. has ever done. in fact, this is a very modest and vaguely embarrassingly small thing that the w.t.o. has done. but it was celebrated because i guess it meant that they didn't have to pull the life support plug and roll away the patient. so in fact the w.t.o. didn't die in bali is a big success. i'm not clear the legitimacy is altogether restored. in fact, if you'd like to make a bet over lunch or dinner, i'd suspect we would be talking about the w.t.o. negotiations stuck again. and the football thing is on
the composition of trade. basically what you're describing is supply chains is offshoring, outsourcing. so things that used to be made here where u.s. manufacturing workers would make everything from the parts that went from the ores to actually milling and then smeltering the ores to making the steelworkers making the steel to the machinists cutting it and putting it together to the auto workers then assembling it into automobiles, all of that was done here. and so what is often called intracorporate trade, i.e., multinational companies that had outsourced major parts of their production and then bringing it back together for assembly sometimes here but often not for a lower wage, that is the five million u.s. manufacturing jobs, 40,000 facilities closed. that is a big part of the story why the u.s. now has real
wages. they're at the same level of 1972. free trade macroeconomic theory shows that when you liberalize trade, benefits go to capital and away from labor because you basically have sent five million high-waged union benefits middle-class jobs away, you have a lot of displaced union manufacturing workers who are now competing in the economy for the service sector jobs. all this talk about income inequality the president has been recently touting, trade agreements are a major part of it. the u.s. department of labor says when a manufacturing worker is displaced from trade and is re-employed in the service sector on average they lose $8,000 in their income. they become part of that stretched bottom working class that's working two or three jobs and then the profit is going to the offshorers. that is what the supply chain is in reality in the global economy under these rules.
>> i -- i am not an economist training or practice, but i do understand i think the world i live in. and really what we're talking about in trade is using a terminology or using the understanding of trade relations and trade deals is a means to deregulate the global rules of engagement that underpin a moral society in how countries treat and respect one another. and that's what we have witnessed since this thing has taken off in a big way. nafta was the first really big demonstration of that. served at te, having apprenticeship at general
electric and just before jack welsh arrived on the scene, i paid attention to that company and i still do for many reasons, his comment many years to a group of managers in orida that the ideal factory -- not a u.s. factory -- but the ideal factory, manufactured factory would be built on a barge. it could be mored in the port of the company that paid the lowest -- country that paid the lowest wages. we were kind of amazed that he could utter that, but in practice that's been adopted by much of the corporate mind set. not just in the u.s. but in the world. and under the guise of trade
deals, trade agreements, it's really been used to keep workers in the world suppressed in terms of their wages or quality of life. and in the labor movement that really sums up -- >> there are about 15 minutes left in this event which you can see at c-span.org. going now live to the house for votes on bills debated earlier today. [captioning performed by national captioning institute] [captions copyright national cable satellite corp. 2013] vot the unfinished business is the vote on the motion of the gentleman from florida, mr. miller, to suspend the rules and on which the yeas and nays were ordered. the clerk: h.r. 3251, a bill to authorize veterans affairs major medical leases and for other purposes. the speaker pro tempore: the question is, will the house suspend the rules and pass the bill as amended. members will record their votes
by electronic device. this will be a 15-minute vote. [captioning made possible by the national captioning institute, inc., in cooperation with the united states house of representatives. any use of the closed-captioned coverage of the house proceedings for political or commercial purposes is expressly prohibited by the u.s. house of representatives.]
the speaker pro tempore: on this vote the yeas are 346. the nays are one. 2/3 having responded in the affirmative, the rules are suspended, the bill is passed, and without objection the motion to reconsider is laid on the table. the unfinished business is the vote on the motion of the gentleman from florida, mr. miller, to suspend the rules and pass h.r. 1402 as amended, on which the yeas and nays were ordered. the clerk will report the title of the bill. the clerk: h.r. 1402, a bill to amend title 38, united states code, to extend the
authorization of appropriations for the secretary of veterans affairs to pay a monthly assistance allowance to disabled veterans, training or lympic g for the para team and for the secretary of veterans affairs to provide assistance to united states araolympics, incorporated. the speaker pro tempore: the question is will the house suspend the rules and pass the bill, as amended. members will record their votes by electronic device. this will be a five-minute vote. [captioning made possible by the national captioning institute, inc., in cooperation with the united states house of representatives. any use of the closed-captioned coverage of the house proceedings for political or commercial purposes is expressly prohibited by the u.s. house of representatives.]
the chair will now entertain requests for one-minute speeches. for what purpose does the gentleman from pennsylvania seek recognition? >> mr. speaker, i request unanimous consent to address the house for one minute and revise and extend. the speaker pro tempore: without objection, the gentleman is recognized for one minute. >> mr. speaker, the house is not in order. the speaker pro tempore: the ouse will be in order. members are asked to remove their conversations from the floor.
the gentleman from pennsylvania. >> thank you, mr. speaker. in october, natural gas production in the marcellus shale region reached six times the production rate in 2009. it would rank eighth in the world in gas production if it was classified as its own country. mr. thompson: this month the number will be exceeded yet again. according to the u.s. energy information report, released today, production in the marcellus shale region is expected to exceed $13 billion feet per day this month. that means it's preponderated to provide 18% of the total u.s. natural gas production this month this type of energy production creates american jobs, spurs economic growth, lowers energy prices, brings much-needed tax revenue to local and state governments and puts
us on a path to greater economic competitiveness. the nation must continue to pursue policies that lower energy prices for americans. if we keep the federal government from overregulating these industries we can achieve these geels. -- goals. thank you, mr. speaker, i yield back the balance of my time. the speaker pro tempore: for what purpose does the gentleman from california seek recognition? >> i ask unanimous consent to address the house for one minute & revise and extend my remarks. the speaker pro tempore: without objection, the gentleman is recognized for one minute. >> thank you, mr. speaker. i rise in support of my newly introduced resolution which honors today as the 65th anniversary of human rights day and the universal declaration of human rights. my resolution will shed much-needed light on the
importance and protection of human rights protections in our society so we can prevent acts -- st people like the man like those jailed for activism. mr. lowenthal: we must recognize that those denied basic human rights such as speech, religion, or freedom are -- deserve to be treated with respect and dignity. i urge all mens to observe the 65th anniversary of human rights day. thank you and i yield back the balance of my time. the speaker: for what purpose does the gentleman from illinois seek recognition? >> mr. speaker, i ask unanimous consent to revise and extend and to address the house for one minute. the speaker pro tempore: without objection, the gentleman is recognized for one minute.
>> i rise today to honor the life of mr. steve burgess of urbana, illinois. he was committed to seing a postal facility at 302 east green street in champaign, illinois, after his father, the first african-american elected to countery-wide office in champaign county and was appointed the district attorney for the eastern district of illinois. most importantly, steve burgess wanted to honor his father as a leader of the tank battalion, the first african-american armored unit to enter bat until tworled war ii. 7r. davis: i introduced h.r. 73 to achieve this. it is devastating to me that steve burgess' -- burgess wasn't
able to see this happen. i want to offer my thanks to steve burgess and his father fur their lifetime of commitment to the people of the community. the speaker pro tempore: for what purpose does the gentleman from california seek recognition? >> i ask unanimous consent to address the house for one minute and revise and extend my remarks. the speaker pro tempore: without objection, the gentleman is recognized for one minute. >> mr. speaker, the weather outside is frightful and if you listen to certain conservative media networks you hear something not so delightful. you hear that because it's snowing there must not be climate cheage. this is unscientific and reductive but that's what they say this year. winter happens every year and the fact that it's snowing simply means that it's snowing. instead of looking at december snow flakes we should be looking at the science. since 1970, not that long ago, winter temperatures encreased an average of .55 degree pers decade, redeucing snow packs and
ea crew -- creating water shortages across the country. if you want to look at something immediate, look at california, where we're experiencing the driest year on record. that's why we need to start getting serious about our response to climate change. mr. huffman: we need to adopt new policies and adapt to the changes that are happening. one place to start is how we operate our reservoirs. instead of relike old school water manuals that are decades out of date, we should be using modern science and weather forecasting. our water supply, our food supply and our future will be impacted by climate change. the speaker pro tempore: the gentleman's time has expired. for what purpose does the gentleman from california seek recognition? without objection, the gentleman s recognized for one minute. >> thank you, mr. speaker. during the month of december, we oftentimes take time to
remoirlize what happened on december 7, 1941. unfortunately, the survivors of parole harbor, we're lose -- of pearl harbor, we're losing more of them each year. i want to remoirlize a friend, hank reynolds, we lost just recently. he's a gentleman who faithfully turned out each year to memorialize pearl harbor on the steps of the courthouse. mr. lamalfa: he was always there with a sharp salute even though these yemen are in their late 80's and early 90's now, they would always turn out and encourage us, encourage the youth there that day to me moirlize and remember that. hank served on the u.s.s. detroit and was there right in the middle of it. ships on either side of him were being attacked, they were about to go out on leave that sunday morning, he returned back to his post and helped fight that
battle that day. i will miss hank, i enjoyed his company and seeing him at those events and i know our country is greater for having had them serve at that time. and we will memorialize him here today. i yield back. the speaker pro tempore: the gentleman yields back. for what purpose does the gentlewoman from ohio seek recognition? ms. kaptur: i ask unanimous consent to address the house for one minute. the speaker pro tempore: without objection, the gentlewoman is recognized if one minute. ms. kaptur: critics said it couldn't be done. they said the government refinancing of the automobile industry couldn't work. thankfully for the economy of our country, they were wrong. wrong to denounce president obama for his courageous decision to safe america's auto sector. yesterday, treasury announced it was selling its last stake in general motor the same general motors that critic december ricively call government motors. now the verdict is in. the automotive rescue was a huge
success. 237 out of 435 members of this house voted to save america's auto industry. the president and democrats made a bet on the auto community and it paid off with dividends. that'd auto sector supports one in 17 private sector jobs in this country and one in eight jobs in ohio. the workers at the toledo transmission facility and the parma center thank the government for going doing the right thing. onward, u.s.a. i yield back my remaining time. the speaker pro tempore: the gentlewoman yields back. the chair lays before the house the following personal requests the clerk: leave of absences requested for mr. culberson of texas for today, mrs. mcmorris rodgers of washington for today and the balance of the week, mr. defazio of oregon for today, mr. doyle of pennsylvania for today and
wednesday, and mr. rush of illinois for today. the speaker pro tempore: without objection, the requests are granted. under the speaker's announced the of january 3, 2013, gentleman from california, mr. garamendi, is recognized for 60 minutes as the designee of the minority leader. mr. garamendi: mr. speaker, thank you very, very much. we come here about every week to talk about jobs in america. this last friday we held a jobs fair in my district in fairfield, california. it was a remarkable event. i've been around a long time. i've seen many, many things. as remarkable as it was, it was also one of the saddest events i've been to. i've been to a lot of funerals and a lot of tragedies over the years, but this one ranks very high. i put this picture up here
because this is a picture of the second hour after that job fair had begun. the line outside the building where we had some 40 employers that were offering to hire people stretched over 200 yards . the temperature was about 37, 38 degrees. it was one of those cold mornings. and these people were determined to get a job. they were willing to stand in that line for up to an hour and a half, some of them, perhaps even two hours just to have a shot, just to be able to talk to an employer, to have the opportunity to look face to face with an employer and say i want to work. the stories were incredible. i spent about an hour, maybe an hour and 20 minutes talking to the men and women that were in this line. oung men -- i remember one
justice who spent several tours in afghanistan and iraq, said he was with the army rangers, aid he had four purple hearts. left the military, unemployed. fact, in this line were 141 veterans. unemployed. looking for work. when to get up in the morning, knows what it takes to put in a full day or more. unemployed. young women fresh out of -- woman, fresh out of school, child at home, wanted to go to work. she had an associates degree programs, elfare human relations.
anything in that area. she said, i'll take any job. i just want to go to work. i want to take care of my child. divorced man, 50, 55, . 18-year-old child. alimony's over. i got to go to work. i've got to support myself. the stories of life, the stories of america, the stories of 971 people that stood in line just to have a shot at a job. 435 of us in this room on a full day, we have a job. we're employed. we have a good wage. we have a very good wage and we we're not care and
doing our job. we're not dob the job that america sent -- doing the job that america sent us for. america sent us here to put america back to work. that's our job. we're not living up to that. two years ago the president of the united states put forth in his state of the union message an american jobs plan, an american jobs plan to put people in this nation back to work. it was complete. education, retraining, research component for the next sector of this economy for the future. a transportation infrastructure sector. a way to finance it. wo years ago, 971 people standing in the cold in fairfield, california, just wanting a shot at a job.
and here we are two years after the president of the united states put forward a jobs plan done. rica, has not been the majority in this house has refused to bring up even one of those programs. i'm going to talk about those things tonight. those things that we can do here in america. hat we can do. so that when 971 of my constituents are willing to line up to get a job, they'll have one. they'll have that opportunity. they'll have a shot at the future. it's a disgrace that after two years with a complete plan to put people back to work, the majority has refused to bring forward any part of that
legislation. it's a disgrace. it's time for this country to get back to work. it's time for this house to get back to work. to put americans back on the job. you want to deal with the deficit, put people to work. they'll become taxpayers. you want to deal with food stamps, you want to cut food stamps, put people to work. build the infrastructure, put the teachers back in the classrooms. but no, they'll slash benefits. these people searching for a job know that unless this ngress -- i see our esteemed leadership leaving this house, leaving this floor -- these people want to go to work. they're losing in the next
eek, two weeks, unemployment benefits. what will become of them? what will become of those 971 people, including 141 veterans who have fought, who have been wounded, what's going to become of them? joining me today are my colleagues on the democratic side. i'd like to start with my -- eague from illinois, mr. general bill enyart who is now a member of the house of representatives. bill, please join us. mr. enyart: thank you, mr. garamendi. you know, i'm privileged to represent the people of southwestern illinois. that swath of the great state running along the mississippi river from just north of st. louis from alton, illinois, all the way south to cairo. those 12 counties of south illinois, southwestern illinois
were once an industrial powerhouse. it was said four decades ago, five decades ago, if you wanted to work, go to east st. louis, illinois, and there will be a job there. there were jobs in the steel mill. there were jobs in the packing houses. there were jobs in the stove factories. there were jobs in the coal mines of southern illinois. those jobs are by and large gone today. there are a few bright spots. there have been -- u.s. steel has a plant in granite city. alton steel has reopened. a local entrepreneur bought it and they're pouring steel in alton again. but you know those job in the packing houses are gone. the jobs in the aluminum industry, those jobs are gone. and that's why they call it the rust belt, because so many of those factories are closing and rusting away. technology has changed a lot of that, and we need to adapt to
that technology and to that assistant majority leader, mr. hoyer, and myself introduced the jobs act. the job act needs to be acted upon. we introduced this jobs act and we introduced it because there are really four priority areas that are central to achieving manufacturing growth in this country again. we need -- first of all, we need to have a national manufacturing strategy. other countries have it. we need to have one. we need to have a strategy that pushes our manufacturing. secondly, we need to promote the export of u.s.-made goods. thirdly, we need to encourage businesses to bring jobs and bring invasion back to the shores of our country. and lastly, we need to train and secure a 21st century work force. and that's really what the jobs act does.
hat act invests in our future. it invests in our infrastructure, our human infrastructure, the people who drive those machines, the people who drive our economy. and, you know, it was interesting that mr. garemeppedy mentioned food stamps. i want to -- garamendi mentioned food stamps. i want to talk about food stamps because far too many of my people in my district live on food stamps and more are children. it's the people who aren't working because they don't want to be working. 60% of them are children who are in low-income families. and the bulk of the adults who are on food stamps are working adults. and they're working in minimum wage jobs. they're working in fast food restaurants or they're working in other minimum wage jobs. and you can't raise a family in southern illinois on a minimum wage job. we need to have jobs that pay a
living wage with good health insurance, with good fringe benefits that provide a living wage for families. when you do that what happens? you don't have people on food stamps. you don't have people on unemployment. you instead have people who are paying taxes, you have people who are spurring the economy, you have people who are buying new pickup trucks and new curtains for the living room and so on and on. and that generates an economy that generates good jobs. now, to talk about our jobs act, mr. garamendi and mr. hoyer and i introduced, what does it do? it's designed to support advanced manufacturing. now, why do we want to support advanced manufacturing? we want to support advanced manufacturing because -- there was an article in "the wall street journal" just the other day. i have it right here. "wall street journal,", the
"journal of american business," manufacturing jobs pay nearly 40% more, 40% more than other jobs in our nation's economy. that's why we need advanced manufacturing. so our bill, mr. garamendi's bill, my bill, mr. hoyer's bill would amend the work force investment act to provide targeted investment to partnerships of community colleges, local work force investment boards and advanced manufacturing firms to design and implement education and training programs for current and prospective workers. currently, the trade adjustment assistance community college program does provide some funding for that type of thing, but unfortunately there's no assurance for investments in advanced manufacturing, and that's where we need to go in this nation. you know, what we need to do is
align the training opportunities for those advanced manufacturing firms, for their needs, for adaptability and for the training of workers. an highser busch brewery in my district -- mr. garamendi: we have one of those in my district too. mr. enyart: i toured that plant a few weeks ago. and the brewery manager told me in 1999 they had 3,500 hourly employees. those were good jobs. hoes are good jobs. anybody can tell you if you work -- you had a union brewery job, working for anheuser busch, that was a job you'd have for your entire life. that would be a great career for a working man. and today they're down from 3,500 to 785 jobs. now, that's due largely to technology, to improve technology, and they simply didn't need that many workers
anymore, but that displacement of workers have chapped throughout our economy and it's -- happened throughout our economy and it's happened in different breweries. we need to grow the kind of advanced manufacturing jobs, and we need to have the workers who have the skill to move up so they're not working in those minimum wage jobs and getting food stamps and on medicaid and those other government programs that are -- and instead we need people who are paying money in and that's what our jobs bill does. and i know that mr. garamendi, mr. hoyer and i want that bill to come to a vote. we believe that bill would pass , pass with a resounding bipartisan vote if simply the leadership would allow it to be brought to the floor for a vote. . and advanced manufacture something growing in this country. it's increasing. but the problem is it's not growing fast enough. when we look at our economy
over the last five years, since president obama won the election the first time and has managed to halt the -- you know, we lost, what, five million jobs when he was first elected, virtually immediately, and we've been growing those jobs back, 200,000 a month, 200,000 a month, 195,000 a month. we need to grow them back faster. and we can do that with this jobs act. so with that i'd like to yield back to my partner and friend here, mr. garamendi. mr. garamendi: thank you very uch, general enyart. enenenyart. -- mr. enyart: enyart. mr. garamendi: enyart. excuse me. joining us now is another represent who have has considerable experience here in the house of representatives, from the midwest, ohio in this case.
marcy kaptur. welcome, delighted you're with us and you've talked about making it in america, about american jobs many times, and we've shared this floor on that subject in the past. welcome. can't cament congressman garr yend -- ms. kaptur: congressman garamendi, i would like to commend you for the leadership you've shown on the jobs front here. you, coming from california, that vast, vast state, i think bring such a per spectacular to have all of us. and congressman enyart, coming from a rough and tumble region of illinois. we in northern ohio identify with your cause and are at one with you in your cause. if there is an ad in our district for a job or for maybe 10, 20, 30 jobs, thousands of people apply. it is incredible to see. and you mentioned veterans in your earlier remarks, how many veterans are unemployed. one of the food banks that i represent, about a week ago,
150,000 veterans showed up to get a -- 150 veterans showed up for a bag of food to keep it together for another week. if you look across this country, there are many whose glass is only half full and it's not for lack of effort. or service to this country. it is still a lack of jobs. during the bush years we hemorrhaged over eight million jobs as a result of the recession and week of come -- we've gained over seven million of those now but we still haven't come back to the eight million, even though we've had 44 months of consecutive job creation, as congressman enyart mentioned. about 200,000 a month. but that's not enough to employ all those who remain unemployed. and those who are underemployed. those who literally have to apply for snap coupons to help their family afford food because they're not paid enough. and what i see happening over the last quarter century is
that even though those who have capital, big resources, and they invest money and they make a lot of money for their shareholders and themselves, the people that they hire are falling further and further behind and they expect the government to compensate for low wages. and so if we have snap coupons, there are millions of people who receive them who are working for the minimum wage. they don't make a living wage. if you look at health benefits, it used to be that you got your health insurance through your place of employment. but guess what? that's all turned upside down. now the companies are saying, let the government pay for it. let the -- you know, we have to do this because they do not make access to health insurance as a particulate of -- part of the employment package that are offered to their employees. some still do, but my goodness, how much has changed.
the same is true with retirement. define benefit as opposed to define contribution plans. people used to get a benefit in their retirement that the corporation provided. they just didn't hog everything to those at the top. but the pyramid has gotten very pointed and the money flows up. and it isn't flowing down. and we have an attrition in the middle class. every single american knows it. if you look at this congress and the very worthy legislation that you've introduced, i say to myself, what's happened here? i read one magazine that said, for the new members that were elected, and it was quite a sizable class, the average worth of those new members was about $1.5 million. now, think about that. the pyramid we see in the corporate sector is reflected right in here. fewer and fewer people are getting elected from the middle class and i'll tell you, i don't come from the middle class. i came from the working class. we looked up to the middle class.
all right? so i know what part of america i came from. and so many people here, honest to god, are good people, but they are so privileged. they have my openia. they can't help it. they -- myopia. they can't help it. they really can't identify with the struggles of ordinary families. and they look down. the other part of it is, because they've never walked in the shoes of someone who has gotten an unemployment slip, a pink slip, i remember when my dad came home with those and we had to sit by the dining room tabled and figure out how much we would spend on food, how much would that be worth, how long would he be unemployed? it was a very hard thing for our family and he actually that sell his little store because he didn't have health insurance -- actually had to sell his little store because he didn't have health insurance. he went to work in a factory to get health insurance for his family. not for himself but for his wife and children. there are so few here who are walked in those shoes.
we do have a problem here that. that same pyramid is operate -- here. that same pyramid is operating. if i could finally say, the value added investment in manufacturing, manufacturing now comprises about 13% of our economy. but it packs a much larger wallop for who what it provides because it does create something that -- for what it provides because it does create something. the decline in manufacturing as a percent of our total economy has declined so much in the last 25 years, we're now trying to pick it up with president obama's help and we're auto seeing that the -- we're seeing that the automotive industry, just this week general motors paid back and is flying on its own now again, and all of us who supported that refinancing of general motors are cheering and cheering and cheering wherever we can. certainly in the communities that we represent. but i can remember the other side, when they didn't vote for it.
and they would have killed all of those jobs in our country. the communities, people that work in them. so i say to the gentleman, i thank you so very much for standing up for job growth in this country. thank you for standing up for manufacturing. because for every one of those jobs added, we really create new wealth for our country. and we help america to come out of the slump in manufacturing that she is experience -- she has experienced over the last quarter century. i just hope that in the new trade bills that come before us, we will have jobs as our first priority and market opening abroad that keeps our products out. again i want to thank the gentleman. i support your legislation and i support your efforts for investment to create wealth, whether it's infrastructure on the public side or whether it is infrastructure on the private side. those are the jobs that really create the new wealth and expansion of jobs for america. mr. garamendi: you've been at this a long time. you've come from an area that -- of this nation that in recent decades has been called the rustbelt. i think that's not the
situation -- rustbelt. i think that's not the situation with your leadership. we've seen a resurgence in american manufacturing. 20 years, 25 years ago we had just under 20 million americans working in manufacturing with those middle income jobs. it was the middle class, they were able to support their family, educate, get a boat, go on vacation, buy a house, provide the food, take care of their family. just as you described. and then we've seen in the last 20 years an enormous decline. from 20 million down to just under 11 million manufacturing jobs. and a lot of that decline had to do with american policies. you mentioned trade programs. clearly that had a lot to do with offshoring tax policies that encourage corporations to send jobs offshore. rather than keeping jobs here. and there are other policies. labor policies and the like, that made it difficult for the american family to earn that
living. our challenge is to reinvigorate the working american families' opportunity. and to address that i heard a remarkable speech by a freshman, not that i've been here so long, but steve horsford from las vegas gave a speech on the floor here about a week ago talking about these issues, talking about the challenge that american families face. i asked him to join us. grasp of essed by his the issue and the passion with hich he sponing. so, representative horsford, welcome to the -- spoke. so, representative horsford, welcome to the hour. please. mr. horsford: thank you to the gentleman from california, mr. garamendi, for yielding time. i appreciate your leadership and the work that you and our
whip, mr. hoyer, the general, mr. enyart, the gentlelady from ohio, and the gentlelady from maryland have been working on for so long and many other of my colleagues around bringing a focus to jobs, job creation and growing the economy in america. you know, we're here today to talk about the american dream. and that is having a good job, a family-sustaining job that can provide for yourself and your loved ones. we're talking about expanding economic opportunity. not just for a select few at the top, but for those who are in the middle class or who are striving to become a part of it. we're talking about the basics of job creation and, yes, i am a freshman. i've been here for just under a year. and i am amazed and quite humbly frustrated by the fact that in one year not one
comprehensive jobs bill has been brought to this floor for a vote by the majority on the other side. and yet we have example upon example of good job-creating legislation, the package of bills that's under the umbrella of the make it in america proposal, that are good, commonsense proposals that would help every region of our country. now, i'm from nevada. a lot of people in this body call it nevada. it's nevada. and my state, though, has the highest unemployment in the country. right now. at 9.3%. it's nothing that we're proud of. it's stubbornly high in large part because we experienced the hardest impact during the recession. when people aren't doing well
in other regions of the country, they're not making money, that means they can't come to nevada to spend money. and while our economy is largely dependent upon hospitalality and the service industry, -- hospitality and the service industry, my district, which encompasses me 51,000 square miles throughout every corner of nevada, has mining, has agriculture, four military installations, including many, many private, small business contractors who are doing work at our air force bases and the army depot, it has other small businesses who are ancillary to the hospitality industry. and so they've all been impacted by this decline in the economy. and so we have an unemployment rate that's at 9.3% currently. and i'm glad that my colleague from california showed those
pictures from the job fair that you conducted. i want to commend you for doing that. because it puts a face on these numbers. it's not about a percentage point here or there, it's about the faces of the people who are standing in line looking for work. and right now in this body, at this time, it's incredibly important for us to focus on the lives of the people who are impacted because of this congress' inability to get something done as important as jobs legislation for this country. now, i'd like to touch just on two major points if i could. first is the fact that, again, in my state we've had a prolonged recession. so many of the people who have been unemployed have been unemployed for going on more than a year or longer. some of them actually are from the construction sector, which was our number two industry in
nevada. but because of the burst in the housing market, the fact that we're not building as much in the commercial sector, the lion share of the people who are unemployed actually come from the construction sector. they also come from engineering companies, they ams come from architectural company -- they also come from architect ral companies. i come -- architectal companies. . these are good-paying jobs as well. jobs that provide good wages for families to provide for themselves. . the points i want to make on december 28, if this congress doesn't do something in the next few days, 20,000 individuals in nevada who currently are receiving emergency unemployment
compensation are at risk of losing that safety net if this congress fails to act. i don't see how in good conscience, we as members of congress, who as you say get paid a good wage, best wage i ever had as a poor person growing up in nevada, who has had to work two jobs virtually since i was 14, 15 years of age, to now be a member of congress, is a great honor. but i do not see how in good conscience, we could leave here on friday, and fail to extend unemployment benefits for millions of americans who need this safety net, especially at the holiday season. now, a lot of those people who are standing in that line have children, they have families that are relying on them to put food on the table.
there's people in my district who i have talked to who say that they're going to go without having the holiday this december. the only thing they can do is to provide enough money to keep a roof over their head, food on the table and gas in the car so they can keep looking for a job. so i would encourage the leadership here to do everything that they can to allow us to vote to extend the unemployment emergency compensation that is et to expire on december 28. 20,000 people of nevada are relying on it and i know millions of other americans are as well. let me just close to my colleague from california, by also offering one more suggestion of ways in which we
can get america working again. i introduced legislation putting our veterans back to work act of 2013. one other interesting fact about nevada, about a third of our constituents are veterans. these are people who have given their all to protect our country's freedom in a time of combat. and now all they ask for when they come home is an opportunity for a job, an opportunity for decent housing, for quality health care, access to education for themselves and their kids. and so with my colleagues, i have introduced h.r. 3454, the putting our veterans back to work act. it renews our vow to hire our heroes by re-authorizing the transition, retraining and employment services that have been created.
it expands our vow to veterans' small business owners to ensure they have access to capital that they need for the veteran-owned small businesses that we are encouraging to grow. it builds on our vow to hire heroes by basically committing additional resources through job training, the work force investment act system to ensure that our veterans are given priority for hiring. and finally, it ensures that our veterans are not being discriminated against in the workplace. so this is an important contribution, i think, to the making it in america, make it in america proposal and i think it speaks to the other opportunities that we have here today to grow our economy. and i just want to close by saying to you, mr. garamendi,
that if we can focus on what we can do in this congress. again, i have only been here for a year and it's frustrating to hear that we can't do, the fact that we haven't been able to pass comprehensive immigration reform or employment protections for individuals regardless of who they love, the fact that there are infrastructure bills that have been proposed by the make it in america proposal that have bipartisan support so we can revital lies our country. -- revitalize our country and do great things if the members on the other side who have refused to allow these things to come to a vote, if they meet us halfway, we can meet the needs of the american public and provide equal pay for equal work and make sure women are paid the wages they deserve. we can invest in education and
make sure that our schools are adequately funded. we can replace the sequester and make sure that our kids have a head start at a bright future and strengthen our social safety net for seniors and the poor and those who are in the middle class. mr. speaker, there is no shortage of what we can do to increase opportunity, to grow the economy and create jobs. this congress just needs to show the will, the willingness to work to get the american people back to work. and i commend my colleague, mr. garamendi, and the others who have spoken this evening for putting this issue front and center. this is the priority that the american people want us to focus on, jobs, jobs, jobs. thank you, and i yield back. mr. garamendi: thank you, mr. horsford and thank you for your passion, knowledge and concern
for your constituents and particularly about those men and women that are from the military. i also have two major air force bases in my district with a very large population of veterans, both young and old from the various wars and conflicts of the past and they need a shot. your legislation -- ought to be the law. it simply should be the law of the land and should put these people back to work. showed the picture earlier of the people lined up 147 of those were veterans. i think about 10 were actually hired -- no, 14 -- were actually hired that day and given a chance. i often put this up when we have these opportunities to speak on the floor about jobs, about putting men and women back to work, because this is kind of a compass that i would like to use when i think about legislation and i think about what we ought to be doing here. franklin roosevelt, f.d.r.,
talking about a new deal. he said this. a test of our progress is not whether we add more to the abundance of those who have much, it is whether we provide enough for those who have too little. we need to think about that often here on the floor. the issues we talked about, putting people back to work, minimum wage, food stamps, unemployment insurance speak to america's moral compass, a test of progress is not whether we add more to the abundance to ose who have much, it is whether we provide enough to those who have too little. ecember 28, representative horsford laid out that date,
december 28, the day upon millions upon millions of americans will lose unemployment insurance, not because they are lazy or don't want to work. these people, 971 of them last friday in my district at my jobs fair. .hey want to go to work joining us today, remarkable woman, incredible back grouped and caring about the people of america working on a national program to make sure that woman have a good shot. incidentally, let me put this up there before i introduce you, representative edwards. today is a remarkable day for women. the new c.e.o. of general motors is a woman. she's not going to be on the unemployment line. she spent 30-some years of
general motors and came from the factory floor all the way to the top. that's your story, too. donna edwards, incredible representative from the state of maryland. i think you wanted to talk to us about your citizens and constituents. ms. edwards: i thank the gentleman from california because every week you are here talking about what we can do and what we should be doing to create jobs in this country. i have heard it said by some that there's nothing that the federal government, that the congress can or should do to try to create jobs. well that's just a bunch of hooey. the federal government has a lot of capacity to help spur private-sector job creation, but we haven't done it in this congress. we have had the opportunity, but we haven't done it in this congress. and i thought as you put that
quote up there by franklin roosevelt, when i think of all the memorials there are here in washington, d.c. and there are plenty of them, free to the public paid by the taxpayers, one of my favorites is the f.d.r. memorial, and the reason is because as you're walking through that memorial, you have there in bronze people standing in line, standing in line waiting for -- standing in line waiting for a job. and when president franklin roosevelt saw what was happening in this country, trying to come out of that great depression, he didn't say oh, well, there's nothing we can do. now it's true, he did have some members of congress who were fighting him every step of the way, who didn't want to do what
it would take to wholesale the federal government all in, investing in the american public, investing in job training, investing in rebuilding this country. but franklin roosevelt knew the difference. and he pushed for that so that all of those people standing in that line would have jobs. and that's what i see when i go to the memorial. now, if you take the trail along from the f.d.r. memorial, you can walk along the pathway and it brings you to the new martin luther king junior memorial, another great man, who stood at the foot of the lincoln memorial, calling for us to put people to work for equality, right on the steps of the
lincoln memorial. each man, including lincoln in their time calling on the congress to do the right thing. well, now, mr. garamendi, it's our time. it's our time to invest in our infrastructure that by all accounts is crumbling. and you know what? we don't need experts to see that our roads, our bridges, our railways are crumbling. we don't need those experts because we can see that for ourselves. i see it when i drive over some of our bridges in maryland. i see it across our roads. i see the crumbling bridges. now we wait -- when a bridge does, in fact fall, potentially injuring or even killing people and certainly killing the economy around it, oh, we were all in, the congress is right there, injecting the federal resources it takes. but why do we have to wait until
a bridge falls for the congress to do the right thing to invest in our infrastructure, knowing that an investment of billion dollars creates jobs in the economy and if we were doing what it takes to keep up, we would be investing $200 billion. think of the millions of jobs we could create by making those investments. mr. garamendi: excuse me for interrupting. you are talking about some really, really important issues here and as you were talking, bridges falling down. ms. edwards: bridges falling down. mr. garamendi: one of the reasons is this, this is the infrastructure investment from 2002 to 10 years later. that's about $85 billion reduction in infrastructure investment.