>> we should in sequestration and i don't think people realize that those technicians our soldiers, airmen, folks who do both jobs. if you going to ask them to give up their jobs on the full-time side they will not be there on the other side. i yield back. >> thank you. mr. castro. >> thank you, mr. chairman. thank you, gentlemen, for your testimony. admiral, my condolences.

i represent the senate in texas, of course very important to the military and had a few questions about some of the operations there. the first one is, do we know what impact another round of sequestration cuts have on the services provided at wilford hall ambulatory center? can you address whether medical research performed there will be impacted? >> i'm sorry, i can't give you an answer specifically but i will get it day. i just don't know the details of that. >> second one that, of course, concern san antonio in my district i have lackland air force base. will sequestration affect any of the programs related to combating sexual assault in the military? >> no, sir. >> so those will be protected? >> we actually protected our civilian workforce involved in sexual assaults, sexual assault coordinators from furlough from

preventing that from occurring and will continue to put the emphasis on those programs. >> those were my two questions. thank you very much. i yield back. >> thank you. for your testimony, for your work, and for the continued efforts that you make to live with these very restrictive budgetary problems that you were dealing with. i know that this will be an interesting week for us. we have to get a c.r. past. we have to shortly get a debt ceiling limit increase, and i think every member of congress is taking these issues seriously, but there's 435, 434, maybe 433 members now, and they

come at it from every one of those come from different directions. i know that the armed services committee is keenly aware of the points that you bring up, and i think very supportive of the military. and we are the largest committee and congress, and maybe we can have some sway in some of these discussions. we haven't done so well so far, but maybe, maybe going forward we can. again, thank you for your service. please, let the men and women who serve with know that we appreciate, greatly, their efforts and the things that they do. with that, this hearing is adjourned. [inaudible conversations]

>> the head of the house oversight committee, representative darrell issa, says he does not have any quote machiavellian efforts underway to stop the affordable care act. he and committee ranking member allies you coming spoke during a hearing on implementation of the health care law. you can see that hearing in its entirety online at c-span.org. here's a little of what they said. >> this week, house republicans are threatening to shut down, shut down the entire government unless the affordable care act is completely to fund. republicans want to limit health coverage, for tens of millions of americans from return the key to insurance companies and go back to the days of discrimination against people like her with preexisting conditions. ladies and gentlemen, i've said it before and i'll say it again. we can do better.

the chairman is right, there are things we can do to improve this, and this may be hard but this is america. we do hard things all the time. we can do this because people's lives are dependent upon it. without i get about. >> mr. chairman? >> yes, sir. >> mr. chairman, i just point out the gentlemen talked about the law, implementing the whole law. was the president implementing the whole law when he gave the delay to big business? it's a great speech. the president of united states can he's the one is a big business gets a delay but the rest of america doesn't. spent come on now. >> come on now? >> chairman? >> yes, sir. >> he knows what the president was trying to do, was to try to again, a lot of speed will the gentleman not say speeded will you let me answer the questions because you got seven minutes. >> go ahead and answer the

question. >> again, the president come again, i stated before, this is hard, and business as four, said they could not get in certain things accomplished. the president given that we would a lot of the problem we have in the law is because of things that happened when we are trying to pass it. and trying to compromise there. but again, the chairman of the committee is right. you're right. there are things that could be better, but that does not mean we scrap it and throw it up because people will die. they will literally die. and you know it. >> i was making -- the gentleman was making the fundamental point. he specifically said, we can read about, he specifically said the whole law. and i just want to know if it's the whole law, if it's the whole a we shouldn't give some special interest to business which the present day without even have congress vote on it. >> mr. chairman?

i take no special privilege but as a member of the committee, i know that we have witnesses who can deal with some of the challenges that everyone is concerned about, the individual mandate, the corporate mandate, the timeliness of it and so on. so i hope we can get to it. i join with the ranking member in one sense. this is an important hearing. we will disagree on the purpose of it perhaps, but i think that as we hear from our witnesses, i think the witnesses will speak for the real intent of the ring and i look forward to getting to it in a lively debate afterwar afterwards. >> a couple live in studio you up-to-date on our companion network c-span3. the house oversight and government reform committee holds a hearing on the attacks in being gaza libya that killed four americans. that's at 9:30 a.m. eastern. and then at 1:45 p.m. eastern, ahead of the international monetary fund, speaks at the

u.s. chamber of commerce. >> this is open to al all middle and high schools to this you were doubling the number of winners and prize money. create a five to seven and documentary on the most important issues you think congress should consider in 2014. they are due by january 20, 2014. need more information? view studentcam.org. >> the house of representatives today will consider the role for a bill known as a continuing resolution that would fund the government through december 15. and defund the new health care law. a final passage vote will come up on friday. the rules committee considered the legislation for several hours yesterday evening.

>> thank you very much for coming back after the vote. i appreciate the chance for our colleagues to join the rules committee in is very important hearing, h.j. res. 59 containing resolution 2014. and why we had previously announced that the chairmen and ranking member would be here, i wanted to allow an opportunity to elaborate just for a second, and also to give ms. slaughter a chance to welcome both of you. this committee, as you know, makes itself available on a 24

hour basis for the needs of the house of representatives. and the members of this committee today we are minus at least one it was not able to be here because of the floods in his home state and district in colorado. at the members of this committee have had a great deal of time today dealing with issues that are very important to our country. and we want both of you do know how much we appreciate you taking time, not just to give us your advice and consent on ways to go, but really to recognize your service, both of you, your service to this congress for the hard work that you as appropriators and your staff has done for a long period of time. mr. rogers, i want to personally thank your staff, including the gentleman, mr. polis, who represent you on this committee for the great work that you are doing, the prodigy bring us

today and the clarity by which we are able to deal with the issue. as a number of the republican leadership, i will tell you we are not the least bit interested in shutting down the house of representatives, the trendy government. the house of representatives has an obligation to move forthwith the things that we believe will be best as dialogues and debates, and were going to do that today. and so i know that we will deal with each other in a process of the spirit of trying to get our work done, but i want to thank both of you for working together, for coming to this committee, as together as you can come and for doing the great work on behalf of all of your colleagues. does the gentleman wish to make a statement? >> justice and glad to see you, and i think the two of them have a very hard job. pretty tough. i've known mr. rogers along time. so we're happy to have you here today.

>> thank you very much. both ms. slaughter and i have had discussions about the availability of the rules committee. i've put my side on notice that we will await the news back from the senate as they move through their processes, and appreciate you making yourself available at the time with something back from the senate that we will move expeditiously on. the continuing resolution these important to the country, to know that the confidence of two parties working together, and the success of, that we can have with the united states senate. i want to thank both of you very, very much for being here but without objection, we would invite the young gentleman from kentucky to address the committee. the gentleman is recognized. >> well, mr. chairman, thank you. for inviting us here.

i admire the work of this committee greatly. i mean, there's no one to work harder than the rules committee and thus is the appropriations committee spent on sir, we didn't hear that first line. >> but this is a great committee and we appreciate your work. >> yes, sir. >> and especially you, mr. chairman. a longtime friend and a great leader of this committee. and in the house and chairman, in general. ms. slaughter and i share a common hometown. she was originally from the down where i live, small town, somerset. and i've known she and her family for all of my adult life. we are here before you today to present h.j. res. 59, the continuing resolution that would keep the government operating

following september 30, the end of the current fiscal year. and we are here before you to seek appropriate rule to provide for the timely consideration of this legislation. time is running out. and the house must take up and pass this bill as soon as possible. this c.r. is a mechanism to keep the doors of the government open after current appropriations bills expire september 30. the pace of this c.r. is clean. containing no controversial writer. it's short term and to prevent a catastrophic government shutdown, which were all dedicated to trying to prevent. hj are as last until december 15 of this year, total of 76 days. it provides funding for an

annualized rate of 986.3 billion. that's about the same rate as the current post sequestration funding level that miner scorekeeping adjustments. there are some cases, but very few, where provisions have been included to prevent disastrous unintended shortfalls to ensure the continuation of critical programs and services, or to provide good governance at taxpayer dollars to these of course unknown as anomalies. we've only included those that are absolutely necessary and my instructions at the outset was to keep this thing clean, simple, direct, short-term and keep the anomalies at a bare minimum. as i've said this before, in fact many times now, it seems the continuing resolution is not my preferred way to fund the government. passing 12 individual admitted,

debated appropriation bills under regular order is one of the most important and basic duties of the congress, and charlie on we dedicated ourselves to the proposition of bringing out 12 bills, regular order, the old-fashioned way. unfortunately, the events didn't develop that allowed us to do that. so defaulting to continuing resolutions year after year is a bad habit that we've developed. while my committee in deed made every effort to pass our bills and bring them to the floor, many political and fiscal challenges made this impossible because house and senate, that number was not consistent between the house and senate. so it prevented us from ever

being able to bring these bills in the regular order. it is high time we got our fiscal house in order. and this c.r., while not the ideal course, will give us the time, we hope, to do just that. this c.r. will provide a funding bridge to keep the government open while larger fiscal negotiations occur, we hope. we've got to find a balanced and attainable solution that addresses the debt limit. , are ou out of control titles n become and the indiscriminate and damaging cuts of sequestration. to get our work done, we need that common number with the senate. and overall topline for discretionary spending on which the house and senate agreed for both fiscal '14 and 15.

with that, i have every confidence that we will be able to complete our work on the 12 appropriations bills for this year and next. 12 bills. it is my hope that our colleagues in the house recognize the urgency and importance of passing this interim measure. the american people do not want, and, frankly, are tired of the repeated threats of a government shutdown year in, year out. a shutdown would lead to bad economy, bad for this congress, bad for the hard-working americans that we represent. so congress must pass this bill without delay so that we can get on with our business. mr. chairman, thank you very much. i want to thank you for thanking mr. cole, a member of our committee, and george, who has been so very helpful in these bills that we're talking about

as he is in all of our efforts. so i thank mr. cole for his service. with that, mr. chairman, i yield. >> mr. chairman, thank you very much. as you know we approached you at the beginning of the year and asked for your very best to serve on the rules committee as an advocate, and, of course, tom cole became the. not just natural choice, but lives up to i think the finest of both committees, and so with great respect we have accepted that and he's done an awesome awesome job. ms. lowey, as a ranking member get an opportunity to come and see the stalwarts of your party who represent you very ably and while on this committee. i want you to know that mr. polis is not here today but as i stated up front, it's only because of some circumstances that are well beyond his control. but we are delighted that you

here and welcome your testimony, and do applaud you and chairman for bringing together a package today that hopefully we can move forth are towards resolution. i thank you. >> thank you, mr. chairman, and want to thank you for your opening remarks, and you're welcome to chairman rogers and myself, and i thank you. madame ranking member, and it's good to be here with the entire appropriations committee but i just want to assure you that chairman rogers and i have worked together for a very long time. and, frankly, if it were up to chairman rogers and myself, and chairwoman mikulski and ranking member shelby, we could probably have had this project done a month ago when we began our

discussion to so i'm sorry that today i have to oppose this continuing resolution, and i would like to explain why. but first of all, i come into, and sorry that mr. polis can't be with us today. and i do remember when we came before you for the resources for same day. and you were very supportive, mr. cole, and others were. and that the time we said you never know, it can happen to you. and we were so grateful that this congress did support it and will support mystical answer but will support mr. polis' request. it is a tragedy when this occurs in the impact on people's lives as mr. cole knows is just immeasurable. so i thank you for giving me the opportunity and to get on to the

business today. let me explain why i will oppose this continuing resolution. on september 10, chairman rogers introduced the c.r., and his press release stated, quote, this bill is free of controversial writers and does not seek to change existing federal policies. how much things have changed in less than a week. unfortunately, this new package will attack not only one but two politically motivated, ill-conceived and doomed provisions. one is to pay china first act. the other would defund the affordable care act. undermine the implementation of the aca only gives our medical choices back to the insurance

companies and keeps health insurance costs too high for too many families. and every member of this institution knows the writer will never make it through the senate, or be signed into law by the president who fought to enact this in the first place. but i'm not here to relitigate health care reform. instead, we should be focused like a laser on creating american jobs. the effect of defending the affordable care act, the effect of brinksmanship on the budget and the debt limit slows economic growth and job creation. republican efforts to maintain sequestration, cbo tells us, will cost the u.s. economy up to 126 million jobs this year. again, i want to repeat,

according to the cbo, not a democrat organization, not a republican organization, tells us will cost the u.s. economy up to 1.6 million jobs this year. in fact, the republican budget plan shortchanges american jobs and infrastructure, results in education and defense layoffs, slows head start and afterschool programs, and slashes health research. that's why i strongly support the van hollen stop the sequestered job loss amendment, and urge the committee to make the and in order. the bill before us is unfortunately, and this is what i feel is so tragic, a waste of valuable time. we should be using to reach bipartisan solutions to

sustained economic recovery and put more americans to work. at every stage of the game, unfortunately, the majority has failed to lead. they walked out of negotiations with the president last year. they ignored this request replacement plan and the administration's budget request that she. they failed to make an order democratic amendments to replace sequestration offered in committee on each of these appropriation bills. they refused to go to conference, despite house and senate passed budget, which led to spending bills written to dramatically different levels. because the republicans won't work with democrats to find a balanced approach to move the bill forward, we now are facing

a potential shutdown of our government, and our economy. after this bill is sent to the senate, i hope we're able to agree on a bipartisan congressional resolution that could be enacted. the one before us is not it. unfortunately, we will be back here again next week facing the same crisis. [inaudible conversations] >> pardon me? i would love one. >> thank you very much. the gentleman has evidently i believe yielded back her time, and i thank her very much. we've got plenty of water there. and thank you very much.

both of you are very gracious to be here. >> [inaudible] >> help is right around the corner. it is coming right to you. i would remind the gentlewoman where she is involved, there is no free lunch so be careful. [laughter] he extracts a lot of things. i want to thank both of you for giving your testimony today. just two points if i can quickly. first of all, mr. chairman, we do want you to take the time that's necessary, and waiting until december 15, we do concur with you, hopefully will be enough time for you to gain the necessary time to work with the senate. and see what we can do on this. it's our hope that that will work, and i'm willing to bet on hal rogers in that endeavor. spent if i could say, mr. chairman, being able to do that,

being able to work with the senate to come up with 12 appropriation bills that fund the entire government depends upon us getting a number, as i said before, that's common with the senate over on -- which we don't have now. that will have to come from our leadership on both sides of the aisle, and with the senate. and hopefully they will come up with that number in time for us to then have at least a month to put together these bills before the 15th. >> yes, sir. i think we're all counting on each other a lot. and i -- >> i just gave him -- >> there must be something in this room. [laughter] >> i'll tell you, let's -- [laughter] let's hope cynthia is not watching. she may call here, hal, and want

to come up here and help you. you. >> is there a doctor in the house the? >> there is a. [laughter] he is back there in my office making a call right now. ms. lowey, thank you very much for your observations about getting about jobs in this country. and i do appreciate and respect that there may be a loss of a million plus jobs, but we understood when we pass the health care bill, we lost to mine private sector jobs and your party ran that through despite the knowledge we would lose 2 million american jobs with health care. so i think that as best i can tell you, everybody justifies in their own way, we justify what theithink what we're trying to accomplish here by saying dead and big spending and big government is a far bigger price to pay then funding bigger

government that does things to the american people. and so, and i give you a chance to respond, but i just think that what we're trying to do in sequestration is bigger than any of us, and it's to save us from bankruptcy. and with great respect to people who, could probably lose their job, that the bigger government and big spending arms many, many more people. so it's just a political disagreement. and i would yield to the gentlewoman. >> i would just like to make a few points, because many of us have had this discussion now for quite some time. and i would like to just remind my colleagues that any budget control act, we did include $2.5 trillion in cuts over 10 years. that's a lot of money. and we understand that we want

to cut out all waste, fraud, and abuse, but, frankly, i don't know about your districts, but my district is very upset about the potential cuts from the sequestered to the national institute of health, whether it's autism or alzheimer's or heart disease or diabetics. i hear from all of them, and many of our large institutions that exist around the country, they are laying off people because they don't know what to expect with the sequestered continuing, and that's why i agree we need regular order. and my friend, the chairman, agrees with me. or i visit head start centers. they are laying people off, closing head start centers. and what about the bridges, and what about the tunnels? and what about the highways? so i just think if we could get

together and pass continuing resolution that doesn't have all these extras, because you and i know that we can improve the affordable care act. i take a lot of suggestions from doctors and patients in my district coming any major piece of legislation. if you look back at social security, or any major piece of legislation, there have been amendments along the way, so i will never say it is perfect the way it is. but you and i know that the president is not going to sign a bill that gets rid of the affordable care act and turns back the process to the insurance companies who have been raising the prices every year. so i hope we can work together on improving, making changes. but not including it into a c.r. and the pay china first act. that maybe every piece -- important piece of legislation,

but to attach it to a continuing resolution, in my judgment, does it make sense. and we may have different ideas, my friend, about the role of government. and id field that the government is there, not just to give a handout, but to help people, to lift people up. and have a partnership with the private sector and create jobs. and we're going to stop government, you're going to have a tremendous impact on the economy. people will be out of work. and if you have one person out of work, that person can't go to the supermarket. that person can't pay the rent. that person, you know the scenario, can go on and on. so i just hope, and chairman rogers and i i'm sure agree, and chairwoman mikulski and ranking member shelby agree, we need a continuing resolution. let's work this out. let's get rid of the

sequestered. and let's put a plan in place with the 12 bills that make sense, cut out waste, and not forget that we already cut out $2.5 trillion in the budget control act. i'll leave it at that, my friend. >> yes, ma'am. i really want to approach more ideas after listening to you. i would love to trade a sequestration for obamacare. >> i think we have to give -- >> that are both job losers and we talked about jobs that are really important. they are both killing our economy, and we ought to come together as republicans and democrats and let's just vote on this thing. and i would be willing speak are we up to 39 or 41? >> i'm talking about when we do away with sequestration and trade them out. $900 billion worth of this for obamacare. i'll try to approach you tomorrow and see if you're interested in signing up for that and we will both the credit for saving americans jobs spent

you and i both know with great respect, thank you that obamacare is lost, and you can call obamacare or affordable care act, whichever you prefer. and with all the benefits that will occur, with all the people that are going to get insurance, you and i'm not going to have to pay for these millions of people who come to the emergency rooms without insurance. so we've had that debate so i won't continue it now. >> mr. chairman? >> yes, sir. >> if mr. polis where i think you would ask about what's available for aid to colorado in this flood time spinning and i'm sure, you know, we know, and we will get -- you want to add to that now? and i will ask you. what would be available to the gentleman from colorado with the knowledge that he is paying attention to this hearing, what would be available? >> it's such a dramatic, it's considered a 500 year event.

because will most likely exceed 1 billion. flooding is estimated to cover an area the size of connecticut. so our thoughts and prayers are with the people as they face this calamity. and our committee stands at the ready to provide additional assistance, if necessary. theme is currently funded to respond all current disasters including colorado. as of 7:00 this morning, the balance in the disaster relief fund was 9.1 billion. consistent with fiscal '13, on october 1, this c.r. will provide an additional 7 billion for disasters for fiscal '14. so no doubt that fema has all the funds they need at this time

for a response. over the last week, fema has obligated 9.2 million for colorado. they can immediately access affordable care act funding -- fema funding for debris removal from roads and highways. the department of transportation has already provided 5 million was called quick release funds for immediate emergency road repairs from their program for that purpose. and once the damage can be assessed, they will be eligible for 100 million of the balance is available from sandy supplement that we passed. in addition, they will be eligible on october 1 for up to 100 million of the 14 emergency relief program. that becomes available under the map-21, which is under the

jurisdiction of transportation. up to 200 million is available to address the immediate emergency transportation requirements. and since the program operates to reimburse states where their costs should be more than sufficient to meet any requirements through decembe december 15. we will continue to monitor the situation and want to assure the colorado delegation and the people of colorado that the emergency or transportation needs are addressed as well as their other needs. so i think that we have sufficient funds in fema to cover that, and other disasters that we know about. thank you, mr. chairman. >> thank you, mr. chairman. mr. bishop. >> appreciate you being here. at sometimes i would like your staff to tell me or walk through what languages in your that deals with wildfire mitigation fund which is something the

administration has proposed for the upcoming budget that is lower. i'm not going to ask it now because i don't want to take the time not to go through it. it won't change anything. just explain what those numbers mean if you would. if you have one of your staffers, i would appreciate that. i yield back. >> have your staff are called will smith of the committee and we will have an answer. >> the chairman yields back. ms. slaughter. >> thank you. thank you both. mr. rogers, what you said before about sequestration and what you said you today, i couldn't agree with you more. it has really been one of the most -- we know that scientists we're losing the from nih. at a great clip. we closed and research to i can think of something you can turn off and on. there has to be some continuity.

ahead of the human genome project said they are four years away a picture from cancer. we have close off of them. people are not getting medication for cancer. so while we're on a we're working on this. all i heard everywhere i went, everybody was where in heck is this sequestered coming from and why don't you get rid of it? mr. van hollen, he's tried seven times to replace the question. i know you meant of the. you would probably know that. but i remember he is going to do away with the buffett rule, for the major oil companies, farm subsidies and there was one other -- it i escapes me at the moment but it would replace the money that we are cutting out from the sequestered. we should do that. regardless of what our politics are, we are really hurting this

country. we are peddling backwards as fast as we can go because of what we're doing with education, with health care, scientific research. we've already fallen far behind that we're no longer number one on almost anything except styrofoam. so i really am very much concerned about that and appreciate yours as well. if we don't do another thing, and, frankly, you know, this debate will not do a thing about sequestration. and i'm sure the farm subsidies -- thank you. anyway, this bill won't do it, and ranking member said so eloquently the fact that we are going to pay china first, why they are still on this bill i never know. including the repeal of the health care which is doing so well out in the country. yesterday's debate said it was

possible for people to get monthly premiums of $100, which is been unheard of in this country. so the cost of health care is plummeting but it's going down very fast. i haven't seen any great loss of jobs in any kind of health care. i think probably that will work out so well that people will be embarrassed later on. that's neither here nor there. but tomorrow, there's no point in delivering this at all. we will all do what we have to do when we vote on friday, thursday whatever it is. and continue the same thing absolutely no legislation being passed and having everybody in the united states hang on by the fingertips and try to survive and wonder what the heck we're doing to hear. but thank you for your work, nonetheless. i do very much appreciate that. we got the transportation report on the status of bridges, and roads in the united states, and

the numbers of bridges are unusable now. wouldn't it be great if we could put all those people, a lot of people out there to work rebuilding this infrastructure? and after spending $2 billion a week on a war in iraq, shouldn't we be able to spend a little money on ourselves? i would like to close this thing, i see that ms. norton is here, and when we talk about disasters and what we do, there's not much we can do to mitigate disasters. i was very much impressed with what you said when something happens, the people who live in districts of columbia come to take it personal. so do we. we take it personally. it was a tragedy of major proportion then makes you wonder if everybody shouldn't have top security clearance. but that was a disaster of major proportions as well. so thank you very much, cranky and i yield back. >> gentlewoman goes back.

mr. cole is recognized. >> first, i want to obviously acknowledge my chairman and my ranking member from appropriations and no michigan but around the table on either side of the aisle what a terrific members they are. how well they work together, how well they committee with one another. they even cough together as you can see. they are about as close as you could ask people to be. and i think if we can give them the time and our colleagues and the senate the time to i will have any doubt that we could reach that goal of having an agreement, and working through a semblance of regular order towards the end of this year and by the weekend we can get better by this. i think this is a real opportunity. i do want to also thank my friends because we did get a great deal of help during our disaster. i want to thank the administration as well because i had to give, help came and

became abundantly and quickly and professionally. and it's been very well done and i think the administration would tell you they've done a lot of cooperation on the other end. that is the decision had not been made by this congress on a bipartisan basis, to help stand and replenish the fema disaster fund we would not have had that hell. so chairman rogers and, i know mr. polis who is not your is dealing with a difficult situation will take a great deal of comfort that we will be there to help them as well with this, or any other group of americans. i am going to take the opportunity to point out consequence was the president's idea. we can all read bob woodward's book are followed is reporting that this was his suggestion. he advocated for. he signed into law, and, frankly, we've offered on multiple occasions to try and deal with them to redistribute

those savings in a more logical manner. some of the roughly half of the $2.5 trillion we're talking about in savings are sequestered savings. so you can't claim to .5 billion then undo all those savings. we would all agree there's a much more rational way to do. we profit that on a couple of occasions i'm sure will be willing to do that again. in the forthcoming negotiations, but savings have to occur but otherwise we won't have achieved the objective that was laid out in terms of lowering our debt. obviously, i'm going to disagree with my friend but i don't think there's something called the china first at any. i think there's something called the full faith and credit act in here and that's something to make sure we pay people money that we borrowed on time and in full and that they no it doesn't matter if they're from china, american citizens who buy a considerable portion of our debt or anybody else. that i do know they're going to get paid back. i think that's essential to maintain the credit of the country and i think that's why

this particular piece of legislation is in here. finally, i know there's a lot of talk about what the senate will and won't do. i don't think we know we are going to do. i think we are to send them all over there and give them an opportunity to do something because they certainly opine on both sides of the aisle about what ought to be done. so let's see what they can do. let's give them what they asked for, at least what some of them asked for, and see what they can do and then be prepared to act when they send something back. i think that's important. i agree with my friends about shutting down the government. i don't think that's ever a wise thing to do. i made that abundantly clear. i don't think that's what we're doing here. i think we're moving a vehicle over to the senate and giving them an opportunity to act. frankly, i think many of my friends on the other side of the aisle, particularly in the united states senate, they come to the conclusion whether it's to defund or delay or whatever that they might want to do

something. because this legislation is costing the affordable care act is costing a lot of people their insurance. major companies right now that i decided they're not going to ensure spouses are part time workers, sort of moving people into the exchanges that nobody thought, the ignition claim would never be moved into those exchanges. also think there's a great many people who supported this bill. a lot of labor unions that once thought it was a good idea, now that they've actually read it and i just today, they are beginning to ask for a fix. so let's again bring the senate into the game, so to speak. and i think moving this legislation will that can do that. and we will see what the actually would turn. but the one thing i do take while this is a very difficult process, i have a lot of faith in, frankly, in good faith, both the chairmen and ranking member and every member of our

committee, i think they want to work and they want to get things done. i go back to chairman rogers remarked. this is sort of above our pay grade at the leadership level between the administration and the leadership of both parties in both chambers. they need to give us a, number, and i hope that we can reach out. i don't pretend to judge what that number is going to be. that's going to be a negotiated process, but once we get there, fortunately because the two of you have worked all long and hard and well under really challenging circumstances, i'm confident our committee will move in a bipartisan fashion to not only fund the government from now into the end of the year, but laid the foundation to move the projected into the mixture over the course of the fiscal year, and avoid what we all know would be inappropriate and that would be another long-term year-long roughly c.r. that's simply not good government, not a good way to work. i'll just make my personal commitment to work in a bipartisan way.

let's move this particular resolution. let the senate act, see what they do. see if they can find some common ground over there, and address what they send back to us in a timely fashion. i think that's why we are all going to be here next week when that was not the original schedule. we've got folks in the senate again, i think this is bipartisan, have a lot of opinions about what the house he should do. the house should act and then we will see what the senate does and respond accordingly. but again, i have very high confidence, my two friends, chairman, ranking member, and i've watched them work together before they were chairman and since they've been chairman and ranking member, respectively. and we've gotten a lot done in our committee. we can get a lot more. we just need a couple of decisions, one or two pay grades above and then watch this committee were. it will do a remarkable job. again, i want to thank by pennsylvania.

i want to thank them for their help with light district when my state was going through difficult time and look forward to working with both of them through this are difficult and challenging process. >> if the gentleman would yield? >> certainly. >> thank you for those nice remarks. and you're right, if the powers that be can come to an agreement on a number that we can have common in the senate, we can get things worked out. on our bills, along with the senate partners. so we just need a number. it's a little bit like the yankees and babe ruth. you know, we just make him he needed to know how far was to the centerfield fence. and when they told him, he said, that's where it's going, and he did it. we can do the same thing if they give us the number, tell us how far it is to centerfield. >> mr. chairman, i just want to thank my friend, mr. cole, for

his kind words. i won't respond to every single point because i know there are a lot of people that want to speak. but because it's so relevant to your district and do mr. polis stitcher, i do want to say a word about those who feel government is too big and we have to shrink government. until you need. there are those who are not willing to fund fema at a level that would give us the power to respond to the terrible disaster in your district, in new york, and now in colorado, it's just beyond comprehension. so i think we as appropriators, and the wisdom of the people on this panel, have to educate some of our colleagues who may not be here this long and say we want to cut government and to cut government in pakistan got that.

cutting fema and not providing the funds that outs will be necessary would have been a disastrous mistake. and i certainly know your district, not as well as you know your district, but i know how needy, but it's not as if the people there are not strong. it's not as if they are self-reliant. but it's about partnership between government and the private sector, government and the people, that makes the united states of america work so magnificently. so we need as much government as we need. none of us want to avoid cutting out waste, fraud, and abuse. and we can always find it, but the mindless sequester cuts would have had a terrible impact on fema. and i, frankly, reach out to all these people who benefit from as i mentioned before, the national institutes of health because there isn't a person in this country, and i'm sure there isn't a person in this congress

that doesn't know somebody who is waiting for a cure for cancer. who is waiting to see what causes autism. and i'm so proud of the work we do there, and i can talk about many other agencies which have been mentioned. so i do hope we can all work together, and support the government and work in a bipartisan way, come up with a number that makes sense, and make sure that there isn't a shutdown. because, frankly, you talk about shutting down the government, that's shutting down the economy. and the jobs that would be lost will be attributed to this congress if, in fact, we don't work together as we can, we have come and we should and will, to get together and pass a good bill, continuing resolution of course would like to get an omnibus bill passed so we can thoughtfully, thoughtfully put the needs of this country on the

table and have a fair debate and pass this bill. so i thank you for your kind words. thank you, mr. chairman. >> it's very easy to be kind to my friend, because she is a constant professional and she's a very good person, as is my chairman. but on sequester, that's part of the deficit reduction and we've already achieved. we were very agreeable to open a vast parts of the budget that were left totally untouched by sequester as all know, most on the nondiscretionary sidekick the amount of money we're talking at a certain a considerable sum of money, so what if i remember correctly somewhere around $85 billion. that's $3.5 trillion total federal budget. we can find 2.5% as long as the entire budget is available. i that's just there are some things in the president's budget, which i give them credit for because i know some of my friends disagree pretty strongly, some of my friends on the other side of the aisle, with the presidents suggested.

the president suggested means testing for medicare in his budget. the president suggested some substantial medicaid cuts but those are things that could be used to replace some of the sequester cuts that we all agree are onerous and yet still keep us moving on a downward slope in terms of lowering the deficit. the cbo would like to code around it has also put out a report recently that at great length went through the entitlement crisis as the main driver of the debt and an unsustainable position. if we don't do without i think women opportunity to deal with that, both in this period between now and into fear, and going forward. but we can't start that process and to get the ball over to the senate side primarily our responsibility, in the majority, i understand that. and then let's see what they send back. that maybe give us the basis to

find a bipartisan solution. that's what i would hope happens. one that does not throw away the sequester cuts. the president having proposed this and having taken a great deal of pride in the deficit coming down can't reinstate it without some offsetting cuts, changes, reforms, somewhere else. otherwise the progress that he rightly points to is going to be lost. and so again we can talk about two and half trillion dollars worth of cuts if we're going to undo them without replacing them with something. to my friends who want to do it on the revenue side, i point out we did the fiscal cliff. we got a lot of revenue there. we undid the -- it was meant to be temporary cut in the payroll tax for people, that was another source of revenue. there's a lot of taxes that i'm not particularly in favor of that were in place that put by my friend when obamacare was passed, that were also in place but the idea we will have a fourth one into my friends who like to pick up the energy

industry to beat up on them, they don't get subsidies. they get a tax break. they get the same tax break effectively that manufacturing gets. if we want to limit that from all manufacturing industries, i'm not sure i would favor that but that's a different discussion than vilify one industry. i appreciate people being sympathetic to my state. it is an energy state as well, and so these kinds of things will hurt employment, job creation, and long-term will hurt american energy independence. again, and eddie the president likes to point with a great deal of pride to, but one he's had very little to do with on the production side. we have an opportunity to be energy independent. with that, i certainly yield back my time, mr. chairman, and look forward to working together in a bipartisan fashion. there will be some interesting twists and turns, but i think we can get there between now and the end of the year. >> the gentleman yields back his time, and i thank him for his

comments and engagement with our guests. mr. mcgovern. >> i want to thank you both for being here. i appreciate the hard work you both do and all the time you put into your work, and i know if this is left up to both of you and your able to work your will here, we would be in a very much different situation. just say to my colleagues who spoke before me though, i think what is really aggravating the american people is the fact that you're provoking a confrontation over the affordable care act, and basically holding the government hostage. we have voted on the -- you've tried to repeal the affordable care act 41 times and, you know, if you haven't succeeded is the law of the land but it's moving forward. children can stay on their parents health insurance until the 26. this is a find that preventative care is being paid for that previously was in, closing the donut hole, go on and on and on. but nontheless, yeah, happy to

yield. [inaudible] >> as a way that the conversation on some of those things that you problems with and as a way not to. and kind of threatening the government shut down, you know, if we don't repeal the affordable care act is, i was just it's not a very constructive way to have a conversation on reforming anything. and i would just say one other thing i understand what's going to happen here. what we're talking about here is before the rules committee, passed the house, go to the senate, something different, i hope we can come to number and we can get this country moving forward to i just say one thing with regard to deficit reduction.

deficit reduction in and of itself is not an economic policy. we all want to reduce the deficit but there's a way to do it that actually could be ruinous to the economy. i would say, you know, some of the cuts that are being proposed are going to make things worse rather than better. i mean, we have infrastructure that's falling to four. we have the gentleman from new york talked about nih research. i don't know whether, you know, doctors and researchers are coming into your offices, they come into mine, but we are falling behind in other countries. i will say one other thing. there were people behind some of these numbers. ..

>> now, i don't know -- you know, again, that bill didn't go through the agricultural committee or regular order, but, i mean, as we talk about improving things and saving money, there has to be common ground. but we have to do this in a thoughtful way. sequester was not thoughtful. i would argue the bill you're bringing to the floor tomorrow on nutrition is not thoughtful at all, you know? it didn't even go through the committee of jurisdiction. and, you know, i'm hoping that both of you will be able to work your magic and, ultimately, get us to a point so that in december we'll be here in more of a bipartisan way, not in kind

of confrontation mode, but in talking about what we have in common here. and you for your, for being here today, i thank you for all your hard work. but i just, you know, i don't think this constantn is very constructive, and hopefully we'll get beyond that and come back next week with something that wean all agree on. thank you. >> gentleman yields back his time. the gentleman, mr. wells, is recognized. >> thank you, mr. chairman. i appreciate the time, i appreciate my colleagues in the proposings committee. i always -- appropriations committee. i always learn something when the appropriations committee comes to the rules committee. mr. chairman, i appreciated what you had to say about the clean c.r. that you brought before us. and i want to make sure i understood you opened your comments with i regret i can't support with what the chairman

brought here because it has all these things added into it. now, i understand a lot of work to be done between the product that the chairman brings and whatever gets reported out and whatever shows up on the floor, but can i take from that then that you do support the clean continuing resolution that the chairman has brought before us, the additions that you -- >> let me say i could not support the continuing resolution where you have china first attached to it and including the affordable care act. as to numbers and to other provisions, there would have to be a combined meeting, as my chairman has said, with the senate to be sure we're coming up -- [inaudible] i mean, if i were to, as the chairman knows, i was hoping that we could put in place a bill that would fund the government at a trillion, 58

which is the senate number. if, in fact, we had gone to conference which mr. ryan has suggested we do over and over again with the senate, we'd begin with a number that we could both agree on. and that's what's unfortunate about this process. certainly my chairman, i assume, would have liked to have get a conference with the senate, agree on a number and then you just write a bill that everyone agrees on. >> let me ask you about that, because a lot of those decisions are left to be made. i thought that i have heard absolutely every single one of my colleagues, particularly my appropriator colleagues, talk about what a uniformly idea across-the-board cuts are, how sequester as a technique achieves absolutely none of the goals that any of us desire. have i understood that concern correctly? >> yes, because i think that we have the responsibility as

appropriators and as the 12 committees, we work together to come up with bills that make sense. for example, i'd use fema as an example because it's been so important to colorado, oklahoma and new york. so i think we had the expertise on the committees, and with our colleagues we always reach out, and we have hearings, and we talk to people to be intelligent about the bills and not just say we're going to take it across the board. and as long as you mention that -- >> if i could -- >> go ahead. >> i know we'll be here a while this evening, and i want to learn you -- from you on that because i agree with you. it seems like what the chairman and your committee have done because 1058, as you propose, is not the law of the land, right? that's the maximum cap we could probably spend, and as soon as your committee goes through the very hard work of setting all

those priority decision, the impact of the law of the land as it exists today is that come 15 days into 2014, we're going to slash all of those accounts across the board at a level that's even below 967 because we're going to have the recoup the three months that we ignored here this fall. and what the chairman and the committee did -- and i actually don't know how they did it, because what an amazingly difficult task that is to appropriate to 967 -- but what they did was to say since every single member of this body has two a man or woman said across-the-board cuts were bad for their constituents, they said why let the law make those decisions for us. what if we, the people's house, make those decisions? i'm just so tremendously prowled that he took that path, but it sounds like what you're saying is that you wish the appropriators hadn't made those

decisions, that instead we appropriate those 1058 levels that are in law, and then come january next year we completely collapse those accounts across the board as -- >> let me make sure i understand you and clarify. as my chairman would say, the defense bill came first, then we did veterans. i may be corrected. then we did homeland security. by the time we got to thud, that bill couldn't even pass the floor because it was so low that there was no support on the republican or the, or on the democratic side. i could say the same thing with labor, health, human services, education. so to fit it in to the 967, the chairman -- and the reason he made that statement about sequester -- did the very best he could. but by the end of the process be after the first three or four bills, we couldn't get anything

done. >> but tell me truthfully because, again, i respect the work you all do -- >> and i know the republicans couldn't get the votes for t-hud, and labor they didn't even bring to the committee because there was 22% cuts. >> the problem your identifying, because the law of the land has spent out how much money we can spend. we have a problem making tough decisions. appropriating the 1058, i guess on paper that would make it easier to vote for those things because all those accounts that we know and love we could just plus up and pretend that those plussing ups were going to stick, but we know, we know the law of the land is what the law of the land is, and absolutely every one of those accounts would be slashed across the board by the impact of sequester. so all of this talk about working together and cooperating in a bipartisan way, i mean, this was really hard, what you all did. i mean really hard. i don't think kind of hard, candidly as a budget committee

guy, i bet against you. i didn't think you could do it. i didn't even know why you embarked on that task, because i knew it would be absolutely every bit as hard as you're describing it to be. but you're appropriators, and i guess that's -- you've never minded having been dealt the tough hand. and you said if we're going to do it, we're going to do it right, and if folks are going to be helped or harmed by the law of the land, they're going to be helped or harmed not because we punted those decisions to some across-the-board trimming mechanism. and i, i guess i'm asking even if you're not happy with those spending levels that are the law of the land and we can change the law of the land if we want to, but as we sit here today trying to change other law obviously the land, they are the law of the land, don't you really appreciate the fact that as hard as it is to pass those 967 levels that rather than just punting you and your committee did what you always do which is to step up to plate and say you give us the number, and we're

going to get the work done? >> but maybe we're talking past each other, because what i tried to put forth is that the defense bill was done at the trillion, 58 level, the homeland security bill, the veterans bill. but as we went further down, there was no money left. so when you cut the national institutes of health by 22% and you make drastic cuts in money for infrastructure, transportation, rail, highways, roads, you couldn't even pass it with republican votes. so not only was there not bipartisan support, but let me repeat again, that bill -- transportation/hud which is very popular and always has a lot of support -- was at such unrealistic levels that the republicans couldn't get it, so it was taken off the floor. and, again, i want to remind you

because labor, health and human services, education, was a 23% cut, went nowhere. >> you're talking about the bill that my good friend from georgia had, the unenviable responsibility of shepherding through the process. >> didn't get through. >> i respect what he did. i hope we'll have a chance to vote on that. absolutely do. you know, there's a trust deficit in this town, and we do have serious issues that we've got to solve. if i can just put in my two cents on working together. we're going to take up the nutrition title, and my friends know that not one single family that is entitled to food stamps is going to lose even a calorie of help for them or their children under the reforms, and yet we characterize it as if it's taking the food out of the mouths of -- >> will the gentleman yield? >> in just one moment, i'll be happy to yield. as the gentleman knows, we've been down that road before. i say the same thing about the

pay china first, act. and the gentlelady knows that's not the name of the act. i suspect but do slightly different things, but if you're on the budget committee -- and i suspect you do also know -- china only owns about 10% of america's debt. in fact, all foreign governments and international entities combined only own about a third. and, in fact, china's number's been coming down. when we talk about the full faith and credit of the united states, we're talking about making sure that americans get paid. we're talking about making sure that pension programs, that schoolteachers in your district count on get paid. we're talking about making sure that retirees on a fixed income who depend on that money and believed it was backed by the full faith and credit of the united states, that they get paid. i understand if folks don't believe that's a good bill to pass for whatever reason. i understand if folks wish we were not having this discussion at all. but i don't know how we bridge these very serious gaps when we

as very serious members sometimes can't deal with these topics in the serious way in which i think that our constituents expect us to. and i'd ask the gentle lady, did she know that only about 10% of america's debt was held by china and 33% held by foreign entities altogether? >> we could have a good debate ant that. the point that i was making and the point that our distinguished chairman has made, let's not mix up apples and oranges. the idea is we had a full debate on the affordable care act. and crept to attach that to a continuing -- and yet to attach that to a continuing resolution, and i think we should have a serious discussion about whatever that bill is called, paying china be first. >> full faith and credit --

[laughter] >> full faith and credit, we should have a good discussion about that. but the problem here is we're trying to get government funded, we're trying to fund fema so we take care of catastrophes such as oklahoma went through and now colorado went through and new york went through, and we're all very grateful for that. we want to keep the research going at the national institutes of health, and by the way, i was looking up some numbers. since the health care law was passed, 6.7 million jobs were created and it is -- >> those net jobs, or was that a gross? >> this was net jobs, and i was looking at some other numbers which i had. under the eight years of president bush, as you know, even though mr. paulson did some heroic work, we lost private

sector jobs losing a total of 653,000 jobs. and by the way, 808,000 jobs i'm talking about are in the health care industry. i just want to say we could have serious debates, serious differences whether it's the affordable care act, but that's behind us. that's the law now. >> if -- >> and if you want to amend it and i have constituents who want to amend it, i say come on in. i've had dozens of meetings. >> i do. i'd have to direct the lady to united parcel service in my district which just dropped insurance to so many family members who work there. i'd direct the gentle lady to delta air lines. the gentle lady knows of walgreens and trader joe's and ibm and on and on and on, folks who are losing their benefits because of the affordable care act. you're right, that's, that is a -- >> didn't we have, what did we

say, 43 votes on the -- 41 votes on the affordable care act? and maybe we shouldhave more discussion, and i welcome more suggestions from my constituents because nothing's perfect, certainly not a bill of that magnitude. but we're the appropriations committee, and i think we have to keep the government running. we cannot close down the economy. remember, it's not just closing down government, you're closing down the economy. >> and by your closing it down, i mean, i'm committed to moving forward the package that the chairman has brought to us today, so the you would not be me. i'm enthusiastic about moving that forward, and i think, again, the great work of your committee gives us an opportunity to do that. i want to make sure i yield -- >> if gentleman could repeat what he said about the nutrition bill, i thought you said not one person would lose a single calorie who was deserving -- maybe you could repeat what you said? >> absolutely.

$40 billion worth of savings that you quoted, $20 billion of which come from saying the only people who will get food stamps are those people who qualify for food stamps, meaning anyone who doesn't qualify for food stamps wouldn't get food stamps -- >> the gentleman is absolutely incorrect. absolutely incorrect. >> not take a single -- reclaiming my time, let me get to the second 20, and the second 20 goes to that work requirement that says if you're an able-bodied american and you don't have childcare needs, you're not disabled, you're an adult, that you should either be employed or in a job training program so that you can be employed -- >> and that's where the second 20 billion. >> i welcome the gentleman's correction. >> you're absolutely incorrect on both counts. on the second count which basically takes a state's request to waiver during difficult economic times where there may not be work force,

training programs available which, by the way n this nutrition bill there's no funding, you say you take that away. and you're going to deny people food stamps who make on average of about $2,500 a year. so, you know, you can spin this all you want, but according to cbo, 3.8 million low income people would be cut from this program. be close to 200,000 children would lose their flee breakfast and lunch -- free breakfast and lunch program because they qualify, because their parents are on this benefit. so this is a very draconian, a very cruel bill. so this notion that somehow you have a talking point that says nobody's going to be affected unless they qualify, sure, if you disqualify poor people -- >> reclaiming my time, i would say to the gentleman if we can't have an honest conversation

about who qualifies for food stamps and who momentum, now, we're doing a $40 billion bill this time. we had this very same debate on the $20 billion bill we tried to move two months ago. if we can't agree as americans that we should have a food stamp program that helps families in need and absolutely everyone who qualifies for it should receive it and absolutely not one dollar, not one dollar that was intended for food assistance for people who desperately need it who qualify for our food stamp programs, not one dollar should be directed elsewhere. because we can't help people -- >> i don't know what you're talking about. >> the gentleman does know. >> i do not. >> the gentleman understands better than most categorical eligibility. the gentleman understands better than most the games that states play in order to bring more dollars into their region, and the gentleman understands better than most how those waivers

impact qualifications for those programs. i do not doubt for a moment, i do not doubt for a moment the gentleman's commitment to those families in need, but what i do doubt is the likelihood that we're going to find a solution if we can't even talk candidly about who qualifies and who doesn't. >> would the gentleman yield for just a moment in. >> be happy to yield to my friend. >> just a few points. by the way, the waivers hard in the law, republican idea -- >> absolutely. >> okay? not bad ideas because they took into consideration that maybe, you know, some low income working person, a person who wants to go to work who lives in an area where there's high unemployment where there is no job training programs available maybe should be on the benefit for more than three months. because under the law if he didn't get the waiver, he would be ineligible for three years to get the benefit. i mean, it is a reasonable thing to do. republican governors, rick

perry, sarah palin have all requested the waivers. i don't think they're bleeding heart liberal, but the point of the matter is you are going to harm people. veterans, you're going to harm working people, and you are going to harm low income individuals who cannot find a job, who cannot get into a work force program. and there's no funding in here for work force training. and it's -- by the way, i just say finally to the gentleman that i think i would be -- i think we could maybe have a better discussion on this if the committee of jurisdiction held a hearing on the bill, if the committee of jurisdiction actually did a markup on the bill instead of having it being written in eric cantor's living room, maybe if we did some hearings, we could listen together to what people might say. to suggest somehow this is no big deal, it's a huge deal. it's going to create a whole bunch of other problems. >> if my point had not been made previously about the heated

rhetoric, i think that point has been made now. i yield back my time. >> the gentleman yields back his time. >> and i gather my good friend from georgia does not proceed that the rant you just went on is heated rhetoric. >> if the gentleman would yield -- >> yes. >> absolutely not, and i'd welcome his counsel to help us be more, be more reasoned. again, there are things -- >> i'll show you when i finish what heated rhetoric really looks like. >> with i take the gentleman at his word that he will absolutely demonstrate that. >> i would, most respectfully, mr. chairman, ask that -- and i would ask my colleagues, do you think that there are, and i surely thank chairman rogers and be ranking member lowy. they've done an extraordinary job in trying to get us to a point where we have reason. but i'll continue my dialogue with my friend from georgia.

do you believe that there are job training programs everywhere in america? >> if the gentleman would yield, i'd tell him that i come from one of the largest recipients of food stamps in the nation, the great state of georgia, and there's unquestionably not only could we do with more job programs, we could do with higher quality job programs among the ones that we have. >> let me instruct you that there are places in this country where their no work force programs, and among other things, over the course of time we have cut back on work force programmings. a colleague of mine and pete's and hal and nita's, lou's, i'm going to his funeral, his memorial service. and be my friends from florida know him as well, ileana, clay shaw. clay shaw introduced a program that i always thought made an awful lot of sense, and it was

in the final analysis welfare to work. but he also had a component that had work for people. so i gather different than me because i gather that i would be called a socialist, i think those people where there are no jobs that the government -- meaning city, federal, state ought to be the employer of last resort. and i used to say to clay that if you had to paint yellow lines in the road in august, the dog days in florida, you would find yourself another way to go about your business. but we don't have that. and what we have many -- in america is serious unemployment with no jobs being not only made by this congress, but with businesses deciding not to invest and investing overseas, and so we're left with this dilemma. but i'm sure you don't believe in the government as the

employer of last resort, but i would. and i thought we had in pensacola, for example, an extraordinary it's of the welfare to work program, and then it diminished over the course of time and became nothing more than idle talk. because there was, wasn't the component that carried the job with it. now, what i would ask, and i'd ask chairman rogers and ms. lowy, do the two of you feel that it is appropriate for us to be carrying the measures i understand that is likely to be self-executeed in a rule offered by mr. scalise of louisiana as hjres-59? i gather that the question i have of both of you is why is that on an appropriations measure, and why is it on a c.r. when, in fact, i think it ought

to be like next week we're going to -- i guess, or sometime we're going to do the debt ceiling at the appropriate place. so i'd ask the two of you to instruct me as to whether or not you deem it proper for this measure to be considered in a c.r. or an appropriations measure. >> well, of course, the bill that i filed was the base c.r., continuing resolution, in and of itself. simple, clean, no riders. >> right on. >> what the committee does with additions to that is not by business, that's your business. and, in fact, that would be correct. >> and i appreciate the gentleman -- >> well, you do agree though, do you not, chairman rogers, that ordinarily this would be on the debt ceiling and not here on a c.r. or an appropriations measure? >> well, my main goal in all of

this has been to avoid a government shutdown. >> absolutely. >> and its damaging effects on the country and our economy. i support the leadership's strategy for this current situation which will allow the package to pass the house in short order and be sent to the senate for its consideration. i'm hopeful that that would lead to the quick completion of the c.r. so that then congress can turn its attention to negotiating theer -- the larger fiscal challenges including the debt ceiling, sequestration and the like. >> all right. ms. lowy? >> i just realized, mr. wood awl, that a you're a member of the budget committee. it was my ignorance that i didn't realize it earlier. and it seems to me we're in this pickle here with the senate that wants to mark up the trillion, 58 and the house 967 because the

house budget committee refused after i think it was dozens of times calling on the senate to -- >> if the gentlewoman would yield for just one second -- >> yeah. >> you control the time. >> yes, i did, and i yielded to mr. rodgers and ms. lowy. >> you really don't show up to question our members. >> okay. >> we're not here to be questioned. we're aiming them at you. >> okay. >> and you're a guest of this committee. >> i apologize. >> and i'm not sure that i have the time today to do that. >> that's fine. >> so i would respectfully request that the gentleman who yields, who has the time and it's been yielded to him to engage the gentlewoman. >> many then i'll just respond, and i apologize. i was just going to say in response to your question that -- [inaudible] of the committee put together a

clean c.r -- >> right on. >> -- without anomalies. and maybe a few. >> [inaudible] >> few anomalies, very simple. the affordable care act was attached to it -- >> yes, ma'am. >> -- as was the pay china first. >> and i believe the gentleman, the chairman of the committee, and i'm not trying to interrupt the gentlewoman, was added by myself and republican leadership. >> no, that -- i'm not questioning that. i know that. but what i'm trying to say, i was asked before whether the final product would be this product, where would the senate be. and what i was just trying to say is the reason the senate and the house are not working off the same page is because the house didn't conference with the senate. so the senate is still looking

at the trillion, 58. we're directed to do the 967, and this is why we're in this pickle, is because the house didn't conference with the senate. >> well, let me say i was handed earlier this measure by mr. scalise. i didn't want -- i didn't know anything at all about it and don't give it any particular names, but as i sat here and read it over and over again, mr. scalise, and this measure, mr. chairman, if you're involved in it and the leadership is involved in it, y'all are going to meddle it. because there's an appropriation on compensation for members of congress. and i don't know that many members know that, and it is not that i'm selfish about what it is. i'm willing to make my contributions to, of what i say

about the poor, and if it costs me more taxes, so be it. but when you start talking about my salary and i live paycheck to paycheck, then you done gone to meddling, and i think some of my other colleagues are likely to the feel the same way. but, ms. lowy, i disagree with you about why we're in this pickle. and met me just say it, because other people tiptoe around it. we're in this pick be l -- or -- pickle, or let me put it another way n this unfortunate, unworkable process because my republican friends have a rock conference that did not come to congress to govern. they came here to obstruct. and obstruct, they are. one of arts of politics in a conversation that i had with adam clayton powell many years ago, he commented to me that among the arts of politics is to

be able to compromise. these people don't have that art. and they don't have that mind cell phone set. and that is -- mindset. and that is what they feel their constituents require of them, and i don't make any argument about that. let's don't just tiptoe around. the leadership is in the position of having to deal with these obstructionists, and then that ease causing, basically, the problems that you all are having and, basically, the problems that the leadership is having of trying to get measures passed. and i just thought to myself the tale in this particular session -- the tail in this particular session of congress is wagging the dog, the alligator, the donkey and the elephant. and there's no question in my mind about that, and somebody needs to say it and talk to these people. i don't deem them mean, i don't deem them crazy, i just deem them not understanding the extraordinary process that allows for us to have the democracy that we have. and where they are is about to destroy it, and that's what they

came here for. i hope they get to go home real soon forever. thank you, mr. chairman. >> gentleman yields back his time. we now move to the gentleman from florida, gentleman is recognized. >> mr. chairman, there's so much to be said, and i think it's been said pretty el wently by a lot of -- el wently by a lot of folks around this dais. and i do understand the gentlelady not wanting to answer the question, particularly as it relates to your continued referral to china first or whatever you're saying. but the facts are clear, and i don't think that's even debatable in regards to who owns the most public debt. and i think the gentleman from georgia hit it right on the head when it really is going to affect our seniors the most and our pensioners the most and those that have invested in

federal treasury bonds that live here in the united states, our unions, our teachers, firefighters, police officers. they're the ones that are going to be hurt the most. and i don't hear us sitting over here talking about a government shutdown. i hear that coming from the democrats. but that's not the -- that's not the position that we're in, and it's not where we want to go. i just want to make it perfectly clear to people that when you start talking about the full faith and credit of the united states, that is a public debt that we owe. and we owe, i think it was 10% that was quoted by my good friend from georgia, to china. i wish we didn't owe them anything. but we owe some other friends that whether it's the u.k. or whether it's v.a. -- japan or other countries, but more importantly, we owe two-thirds of it to citizens here in the

united states. and i wallet to make sure that we don't -- i want to make sure that we don't default on that. so call it what you may, the truth is that we don't want to default on our debt, and we certainly don't want to default on our full faith and credit, because that will cause us additional problems forward particularly as it relates to the debt that we owe, almost $17 trillion today. we're going to play games with that, and we're going to owe even greater dollars as appropriators you certainly know what we pay in a debt payment. we're paying nothing off on the debt itself, the interest. and if the interest rate goes up, i'm singing to the choir here, you noaa that does -- know what that does and we're going to be having additional problems in trying to meet all the needs that this country has. and so i appreciate the dilemma that you're in as appropriators. i certainly do appreciate that.

but i do also appreciate leadership in listening to its members and its members listening to the people back home. and with that, i yield back the balance -- >> gentleman yields back his time. gentleman from florida, mr. webster, is recognized. gentleman has no request for time at time. the gentlewoman, the chairwoman -- >> well, thank you so much. i know that i was absent yesterday, but mr. webster said are you a new member be of the rules committee? you know, it was just one day, but that's how heavily missed i was. >> you were missed. >> i'm glad to be back. and just to respond to my good friend from florida, mr. hastings, i don't think that anyone in our gop caucus -- if that's who he was referring to -- is obstructionist. but i think that sometimes the democrats when they talk about working in a bipartisan manner, they mean us voting the democratic way. your way. and then when we want to vote in

a different way, then we're called obstructionists. maybe there's another definition we can work on. but be i see -- but i see members of my caucus, many of whom i don't agree with on 100% of the issues, but i see them as patriotic americans who want to get our republican, republic going and get our economy back on track. i don't see them as on to instructionist even though i disagree with some of them -- obstructionist even though i disagree with some of them a lot of the time. so i hope he sees us maybe not in a partisan light, but sees us as willing partners in trying the to resolve america's problems. >> would the gentlewoman yield? >> i see you that way, and i see most of my colleagues that are up here that way. but if you want me to start calling names, i'll call names. [laughter] >> well, thank you. reclaiming my time, i thank my chairman for the opportunity,

and i look forward to supporting the bill this week. thank you, mr. chairman. >> gentlewoman yields back her time. the gentleman from texas, dr. burgess, is recognized. >> thank you, mr. chairman. and chairman rogers, thank you for being here, hawpg for your time. mr. woodall described the sequester as the law of the land, which it is. and that law came to us in the normal fashion, did it not? approved by the house and the senate and signed by the president who is, in fact, the current president, is that correct? >> that's right. >> so if there were a problem with the law of the land, then the president -- then the president, he certainly issues a veto threat on everything that i've seen in the rules committee in the short eight months that i've been here. if there were a problem, i assume he would have vetoed it, but he did not, did he? >> no. >> it is the law of the land. i do disagree with across-the-board cuts. i ran a medical practice, i ran a business. there were times we got into trouble as far as meeting our

cash flow obligationings. what do you have to do? you have to look at your budget and say if i've bot to squeeze five cents or seven cents out of every item on the budget, that's what i'll have to do. you hope you have good managers at that point and that you don't destroy or distort your core functions or your core mission. and we've heard a lot of discussion today about the nih. i believe in the nih. i believe they do good work. can i ask either of you just a point of clarification on the nih, in the nih budget, and it has been under some discussion today, is the -- when we did the reauthorization of the nih back in 2006, there was something that came up, and it was called the health and human service program and evaluation tap. does that p and e tap still exist? >> it totally does, yes. >> and does that p and e tap reduce the amount of funding that nih has for science?

be in other words, do they have to pay money back to hhs? >> that is correct. >> what is that money used for at hhs? i'll help you, it's a slush fund for the secretary, is it not? [laughter] [inaudible conversations] >> so, you know, here's the point, we're in a tough situation, a tough budgetary situation. we need to make sure we spend every dollar wisely, and this hhs, p and e tap continues to go on. and back in 2005 it was reducing the nih budget by 2.4, 2.5%. i don't even know what it is today, but whatever it is, maybe we ought to leave those monies in nih and not give them to secretary sebelius for whatever she does. >> dr. burgess, i suggest you call my head office, talk to will smith, the chief clerk, and we'll dig in and try to find the

answers to the questions you have. >> the only other thing that comes up, and we went through last year, and the food and drug administration user fee reauthorization. so those user fees are paid by industry to fda to allow them to do their job or to help them do their job. and those have, those monies which are outside, in my opinion, outside the federal budge, those have been because the office of management and budget have said those will be governed by the sequester, those have been unable for the food and drug administration to do their work, is that correct? >> i can't tell you the answer. this is way in the weeds. [laughter] >> that's my job, chairman. that's why chairman sessions put me here. >> your questions -- >> i'm on your extreme right -- >> gentleman is recognized an hour. [laughter] >> i would hope that after the hearing we could get together and try to answer those questions. >> okay. and i appreciate, i do

appreciate that, mr. chairman. i appreciate you being here, i appreciate you being so patient with us and answering our questions. this is an important bill that we will be dealing with this week. it will affect a lot of us and a lot of our constituents in a lot of ways, and i know we all want to do the right thing. thank you, mr. chairman, for your indulgence. i would yield back, but i appreciate the time. >> mr. chairman, if i may -- >> gentleman yields back his time. the gentlewoman has a question. >> i wanted to thank dr. burgess for your thoughtful questions, and these are the kinds of questions that should come up both in the authorizing committee and the appropriations committee at the appropriate time because you certainly make a lot of sense. and i just want to say if the gop is not trying to shut the government down by putting forth a bill that cannot be enacted and refusing to work together

with the democrats on a bill that can be enacted, i am very concerned that the actions of the gop could shut the government down. because if we work together such as chairman rogers and i have always done or chairwoman mikulski and ranking member shelby have always done, if there had been a conference between the house and the senate, we'd have a number, we'd sit down and work it out in a rational way. but we know that the affordable care act, after being voted 41 times, was it? is not going to be rescinded. we know that. and the pay china first act may be a very important act, i'm not -- >> i'm not sure that's -- >> but it could happen as a bill in itself. so what i am just saying, i would hope as we move forward the house and the senate could

agree on a number, the extraneous provisions such as the affordable care act and the pay china first act can be dealt with separately and that we can move forward together, bipartisan and get this done. >> mr. chairman be, i have no idea, i've heard it all day long here, i have no idea what the pay china first act is. >> i'll describe it to you. it is a talking point from very able people who are trying to suggest that we would give china their money back in the event we're in a circumstance first. and as has been ably discuss canned, i believe, by the gentleman mr. woodall or others, that the people who are debtors to the united states -- i didn't hear the percentage, but about 30% are outside the united states, 70% are in the united states. and we have indicated that we will not go into a default. we will pay the people who are

loaning us money. >> well, how does that become the pay china first act? >> well, you just had to get up on the wrong side of the bed today, hal. [laughter] and that's okay. i get this. there's a lot of things i don't want get, but i get this one. >> it sounds like a pr firm has taken over. >> you know what? i appreciate both of you being here, and i see no further questions from the committee. i want to thank both of you not only for taking your time, but i want to assure mrs. lowey if i can tonight, the republican leadership in the house has absolutely no interest in trying to shut down the government. ..

it was met with a hearty respect by our membership. we are retrying it in a different direction right now. we are going to give our colleagues who have requested this opportunity a chance for them, because they believe they will be successful. we are just going to follow a process. we will have already advised our rules committee members, and i believe everybody in this body knows we are expected to be back next wednesday. to work further with what might come back from the united states senate. i have confidence in that. chairman rogers. >> mr. chairman, if we were determined or wanted to shut the government doubt i would've

never filed of this bill. this bill is to continue the government. that's what it's all about. it's my build, hopefully, amended. if we wanted to shut the government down, we wouldn't be here. we are here to try to keep the government open. now, if there's a shutdown it's going to come from somebody else, not us. >> i think it's us, all of us are negotiating an honest terms with each other, and we've done that in this body. i want to thank both of you for taking the better part of the afternoon and evening to be with us. you are not excused. >> thank you, mr. chairman. >> mr. chairman,. >> we have at this time what i think are two additional members, and we would ask both of you, please, to come forward at this time with a chance that we will continue the dialogue. the honorable eleanor holmes norton, who we all recognize and

applauded for her of veering on the scene and being stand together appropriately the other day. and i want you to know, i saw you. i recognized you not just as a colleague but as a person is deeply concerned about all the people who were involved in this committee, at least by myself, and i'm sure all of us would wish to thank you. we recognize that some days are sad. i give you great respect and honor. i would also like to welcome the gentleman from louisiana. without objection, both of you can anything i've been writing will be entered into the record. i would like to recognize if i can at this time ms. holmes norton. >> thank you very much, mr. chairman. i very much appreciate your words. >> yes, ma'am. if you could please come you have a very soft voice -- >> i can speak louder. >> as long as others can hear it

and i would suggest i'm okay, too. thank you. >> i appreciate you letting me know whether you get me. mr. chairman, only the most extraordinary circumstances would lead me to come forward and asked for anonymity the congressional resolution. i've been in congress a long time and i understand why there are clean crs. i also appreciate that you're trying your best to keep the government open. i think the fact that this c.r. goes to december 15 illustrates that, and i've watched what the leadership has been doing to try to keep the government open. so i'm not here because i believe the government is going to close down. i am your to talk to you this evening about how the very posture that the bill is in no, even assuming that this c.r.

passes, if my name is not included there will be costs, unintended costs to the district government as a result. my amendment would allow the district to remain open, even if per chance the federal government were to close down. now, the district have submitted on time, months ago, a balanced budget. and i believe it has perhaps the strongest reserve of any jurisdiction in the united states, $1.5 billion in reserves, and growing. the appropriation committees, both of them, have passed the appropriation. difficulty is, of course, the

appropriations have not yet. the appropriation we passed leaves in place all the terms and conditions, and my amendment leaves those terms and conditions in place, simply allows a city, a big city, a complicated city, just in its local funds and only its local funds for the fiscal year 2014. because of the cost and the effect on wall street of continuing resolutions that affect the local budget of the district of columbia. speaking of anomalies, it's one of -- the fact that there is an end in the budget, the local budget, this house and the senate have contributed not one dime to the $8 billion that the district of columbia raises on

its own in the city. what makes it is so frustrating to the city, mr. chairman, is that there has never been a member that i have heard that indicated that they wanted to shut down the district government under any circumstances. i believe many members do not know that the districts local budget is even up here. i think they would be astonished to find a local budget in a federal appropriation. and they certainly don't know, most don't know, that a local budget, the budget of the nation's capital could be caught in a possible shutdown. now, i think the chances of keeping the government open our, as you are trying to do, our decent.

but i need you to know what the effects on the district of columbia is at this moment, even if that occurs. and i know from experience, mr. chairman, i was here when the government did shut down, and the district government shut down for an entire week. the results were so catastrophic that even though the government did shut down a number of times thereafter, i worked closely with speaker newt gingrich, who never allowed the district to shut down again during those serial shutdowns. having had that experience i can only beg you to allow the district to be put at risk of shutting down over '05 that everybody understands we are irrelevant to. nothing to do with.

why then have i come since i believe that you are trying your best to keep the city open? the very risk that we now face that we may shut down after december 15 puts the nation's capital in this position. let me look at the most recent statistics. in 2011, we had three separate threats. the district devoted 3000 hours of total staff time, and $131,250 in contingency planning. those are unattended cause that no member of congress new are intended to of course, they pale in comparison to a catastrophic costs that would be imposed if, in fact, there was a federal and district government shut down.

the district provides basic municipal services not only to its own residents, more than 600,000 people, but to our businesses, to the commuters that come from maryland and virginia and west virginia to the federal office buildings, to the embassies. most ominously -- and by the way, i'm going to give you an example from the last shut down. if a shutdown occurs, garbage collection stops. under the law, it cannot resume into there has been no garbage collected for a week. and you can then to claire a health emergency. that is the decision we would be put in if they were a shutdown. the only responsible thing for me to do is to try to keep the

district going for the next fiscal year. more ominously than even that, if there are certain payments that the government would almost certainly miss if it shut down, and the reason they would miss some is that they can extend no money, they can pay no bills of any kind if the government shuts down. for example, the district leases much of its equipment. it leases automobiles. it leases traffic lights. it leases public safety equipment. it leases computer hardware. it has come in addition to that, it has certificates of participation outstanding uncertain d.c. buildings, including our emergency

preparedness communications and command center. we have to have budget authority to pay those on time. if you do not pay those bills on time, then the bondholders must, one pentagon, the bondholders must be authorized. and the district has worked too long and too hard to get that. we are very proud of it. its reputation is stellar on wall street. it's something that congress didn't intend, no member of the house or senate intended to occur simply because we did not allow the district to spend its own local funds for the next fiscal year. without being anybody's interest. and it's not what anybody intent. successes of c.r., keep coming back, eleanor. we will keep you open. this excess of crs have killed

us. they've indicated 3000 more than 130,000 -- 3000 hours more than $130,000 the last time. imagine running a big city on a few months at a time, not knowing whether there will be two or three more months. knowing intense at and we ask you to take action to i will not have to come here again it is no longer an issue for this year, for this fiscal year, 2014. alone. mr. chairman, the other reason that i think that this would be so unintended is that pending as i speak, if we could get bills out of here, is legislation that would keep the government from closing down.

we've gotten it out of the authorizing committee. that's the oversight and government reform committee with the district authorizing authority lines. the senate appropriations committee has in it language that would keep the government from shutting down. the house appropriators have said, although they differ to the authorizers that they believe it would be harmful for the district government to shut down. the president of the united states has shutdown avoidance language in his own budget. so here we have not only unintended consequences, not those who know the district budget come as no member here has any reason, so i cannot ask you to study the district of columbia. you were sent here for your district and for the nation. so if you don't know about this, and i'm coming before you today, you could imagine what the

average member knows about this catastrophe. the district is not being held hostage, because there's nothing the district can give an output even knows that we are in this fix. so i'm asking you to extricate us from it. you do not intend for us to be caught in the this is an anachronism of history. but this is the 21st century, and it is time at least on this temporary basis for this -- for the coming fiscal year to take us out of the spectrum where there could be multiple c.r.s. there will certainly have to be something else on december 15. and everyone here knows there could be another c.r. we hope it would just be a plain old bill, but everyone knows how this has worked in recent years. so i ask you to take the

district of columbia, for whom all of this is irrelevant, to you and to us, out of this struggle and leave it to the house, the senate and the president. i thank you, mr. chairman. >> thank you very much. gentleman from louisiana, is recognized. >> thank you, mr. chairman. and members of the rules committee can appreciate your time to present this amendment as we are working to properly fund the government on the c.r. this amendment would do two additional things. one, it would be fun to the president's health care law and it would also protect through the full faith and credit act the credit of nine states of america by ensuring that our debts are paid. i want to walk through the details of the amendment, and specifically why we are at this point. i think most of us recognize

whether you voted for the law or, like myself, the majority of this committee were opposed to the law, the law is unworkable. you look at the october deadlines that are coming up. you look at the gender first deadlines that. i said on the house energy and commerce committee. hearing after hearing with the obama administration officials have made it clear they have missed deadline after deadline on summit of the requirements in the law, to the point where president obama himself has acknowledged that its unworkable. but the president has only offered to extend relief in the form of a delay to big businesses, and to insurance companies. what this amendment does is it extends the similes to all of american families. so this law should be defunded because it's not ready for prime time. it's so destructive that some of the very people who actually came to washington to help pass it wrote this, the affordable

care act will shatter not only our hard earned health benefit, but destroy the foundation of the 40 hour workweek at is the backbone of the american middle class. we have a problem. you need to fix it. the unintended consequences of the affordable care act are severe. perverse incentives already grading nightmare scenarios. first, the law creates an incentive for employers to give employees work hours below 30 hours a week. numerous employers have begun to coworkers hours to avoid this obligation, and many of them are doing so openly. the impact is twofold. fewer hours mean less they are also losing our current health benefits. this is not a letter from someone on the right wing. this is not a letter from a republican member of congress. this is a letter from james p. hoffa, the president of the international brotherhood of teamsters, who recently wrote this letter, laying out the problem they're facing.

when i go back to my district, as many of you do, the largest complaint i get, small business owners, from families, people have good health care that they like, is the threat that this law places upon them. clearly, it's not ready for prime time. we have a responsibility to ensure that the effects of this law don't devastate the good things that work and help you. the president made a lot of promises during the debate on his health to law in 2009. if you like what you have, you can keep it. it will lower the deficit. so many of these promises that have been made have been broken. we have an opportunity to do something about that. it's clear the law is not ready to be implemented both on the october 1 component, and especially on the jenny first component that are set to take effect. we need to stand up for all the american people, not just the privileged few who can find a way to get access to the white house and get the exemption, which a number have. all americans deserve that same opportunity. that's what this would be good the second part of that, dealing with the full faith and credit

interest we pay our debts. and as you talked about, and to come and mr. woodall as welcome who are the debtors? the vast majority are american citizens. not just retirees. many of whom have those treasury notes, not just pension funds, many of whom are counting on that for american workers, but a special our senior citizens. one of the many holders of american debt is the social security trust fund. we should not in this room allow our seniors who paid into the social security trust fund have their retirement benefits placed at risk. this amendment protects them from that happening. we do want to default. this amendment prevents the fall. the only person you're talking to people in washington as president obama. this amendment takes default off the table. i think we already that's how devastating the threat of default would be. i think we all have a responsibility as when

negotiating and trying to find a way to keep government funded at proper level, to make sure those threats don't exist. that's what the amendment does. i would be happy to into any questions. >> appreciate the gentleman's testimony. i know we're moving on in time. i would like to ask the gentlewoman a hypothetical question. if she did find that this amendment was on the bill, and if she had a vote on the floor, would she vote for the c.r. if that language will end in? >> mr. chairman, i have to think about that -- >> i'm sure you would. >> i think i would have to look at the whole bill. >> that's just a question which i didn't ask. i'm sure somebody else would. i think speed is i'm not saying i would not. i say i know who sent me here. but i think i would have to look at the entire, i haven't seen what it's going to say. of voicing what people have testified to.

>> yes, ma'am. >> but upon looking at it i would have to give it due consideration, i'll tell you that. >> yes, ma'am. well, let me state it having been shut down once and having seen what that does to a big city, i don't think that's -- >> yes, ma'am. let me just say this thing. that was a tough question. in fairness, that was a tough question. in fairness, i will also tell you i would like for you to know that we do not intend to move the direction to shut down the government. >> i believe that. >> and you must know that i deeply believe what i'm saying, and this gentlewoman is welcome to come back to the rules committee when we come back, next wednesday, and i believe that you should stand up and advocate on behalf of of your constituents and not have to answer hypothetical questions also. and so i did not press the gentlewoman at all. but it was a question, and something that might be there to ponder. because perhaps it could come

back at some point, and the gentlewoman would then be a little bit more prepared. i want to thank both of you. i will go to the gentleman from utah. mr. mcgovern. >> i want to thank you both for being here. i think she has some legitimate concerns. is just a lease, i just say that the people here talking about government shutdowns are members of your party, ted cruz, mike lee, marco rubio, among others. so saying that you don't defunded for health care act, which of the government habitats that houses all work. i said that to the gentleman's biggest the house republicans, we brought forth a number of different opportunities to keep government properly funded. >> [inaudible] spent i assume that they're speaking for your party. but i thank the gentleman. >> the gentleman yield to pakistan. i did appreciate that but i also would say that the house is

responsible for its actions and we would -- chairman. >> i want to thank both our good friendfriend sabina. of course, have the opportunity work with mr. scalise image menu is done an amazing job. i particularly want to thank our good friend, the gentlelady from the district, amazing mentors. extraordinary challenging week for you. the manner in which he represented your constituents, and, frankly, all of the country and are really trying situation brings great credit to you and great credit your constituents, and certainly to our house. so i just wanted to extend the sympathies, my personal sympathies and those in my district, but particularly to let you know how much i admire in the manner in which you conducted yourself. to the fact that you had the week that you had, and here you are fighting for your constituents yet again

is an indication of how fortunate they are to have you as their representative. thank you. field but. >> gentleman yields back. >> chairman, you put us on notice on the hypothetical that was a bad premise hypothetical to begin with. you wouldn't have a vote -- >> i acknowledge that up front. spent it was all i could do to hold back spent i hope i acknowledged that. [laughter] >> that's why i'm here. but assuredly, one of the things down the road and that we should do as soon as possible is allowed those who have come from the district of columbia, and the territory, to have a vote. and certainly, in the committee where we vote on amendment.

and i support the measures as offered by ms. holmes norton, and it was very instructed because there were things that she put forward that i'm certain many of us are not mindful of, and that's helpful. earlier, mr. scalise, when you were not here, accuse your amendment and those in the leadership of meddling. and what i talked about was things that people don't like to talk about and that's the prohibition on compensation for members. that's in this measure. people don't like to talk about what it is that we have to deal with. and i know, therefore, some who are not fear the game and lost, and i'm glad they did. because they were advocating that we be in ashes, live in dormitories, those kind of measures but one of my

democratic colleagues even wanted to take away the little award from flight that particularly those in the west use for their families. but, you know, you all have the prerogative. i also feel it inappropriate that on a continuing resolution on appropriations matter, as far as the process of this house, understanding the rules committee rules and can still execute and do whatever they choose, i still think it would be appropriate if you were to bring this measure, perhaps you will again on the debt ceiling, once you see it when it comes back from the senate. nevertheless, i find it to cause a problem that causes me to want to answer for the president of the united states. and i hear a slick approach to who is causing the issues.

it is true that the president has said that he is not going to negotiate on this particular measure, and serving not to negotiate on the debt ceiling. as a practical matter, if he does not negotiate, then all that is left is for us to not go forward, particularly with the members in your conference who choose not to negotiate, who choose not to compromise. so toward that end, put of the presidency and this president in the position, signature legislation that, whether we like it or not, and nuance, the chairman of the appropriations committee said when your bill was called or your measure was called china first, or whatever, he said it sounded like a pr

firm. well, obamacare sounds like a pr firm to me. when it was nuanced initially, even though he is since adopted the words, when it was done it was done in a nasty way. it wasn't done to suggest it was something positive. but certainly members of your conference and the president of the united states have discussed default. and as a practical matter, if you are suggesting that any of this stuff that is going to defunded it is going to cause the president to blink, as i saw from some of your membership, not of the senate, that he will blink they say. well, i tell them that it is not likely, and i don't know the president. i don't even know him personally. and so at that and i'm in a position to easily say that watching your conference

suggests to me that it is not only the president that is saying that if these measures, the debt ceiling and the budget matters, are not attended, that he feels that you would be provoking i shut down of a government. so let's not just put this all on president obama, and i'm trying to restrain myself and not call names but -- >> you have already said some. you refer to -- [talking over each other] >> i will yield to you. i will yield to you but i have -- not at all. you heard my colleague who i agree with, the names he called in the senate. i agree with all of that. that's what they have said. and -- >> what if i -- >> well, i didn't call names.

if you want me to call house names, i will as well. because assuredly there have been members that it said that they want to shut the government down. now, i don't think that they don't have that prerogative. as a matter of fact, there are some of us that feel the best thing for us to do is shut up and go on and let you self-destruct. there are members that have called your potential actions in that regard, not yours, mr. scalise, but your conference. i call them the wrong conference. the fact of the matter is there are some that have said former colleagues often do not serve in the senate that they would be on a suicidal mission. i can only suggest that it's very troubling. the point i wish to make is the president of the united states is not the only person that has discussed the possibility of the united states government shutting down. i yield to the gentleman for any response spent thank the gentleman for yielding.

first of all, i surely have and not engaging in name-calling. and, in fact, if you look at the members of the republican study committee, i'm chairman of the republican study committee, this memo reflects the hard work of many of our members who have been diligent in making sure that the government will be properly funded, and to ensure that default is never an option. and, in fact, that is the intent of the full faith and credit act to ensure that all those people that, over years who have loaned money to the federal government to operate, a vast majority by the way which are american citizens, especially our seniors that are included, they ought to be protected. that's what this amendment does. so you have a scene in name-calling coming out of members of the republican study committee. but you certainly haven't seen anyone seeking to fall because we are brought forth legislation to prevent the fall. that's what this does. it relates to the debt ceiling and the president, whether not

the president is going to negotiate clearly president obama has been wanting to negotiate on the debt ceiling before, not just this president, and he's a student of history, a lot of the big deals that have helped us get back to fiscal sanity, to get us a balanced budget under bill clinton as well as its happened was a quest under president obama, those looking for the debt ceiling negotiation. so to suggest that negotiation, negotiate and the debt ceiling is a new concept or something the president won't engage in can he's engaged in a way i think it's helped get us to a better place financially. you look at what bill clinton did, with newt gingrich and the congressmen, that negotiation help us get it us to abbas budget which a lot of us would agree is good for country and healthy for our economy. we just want to get back up if we want to get to the place where we can ensure that as we are negotiating over how to properly fund government, how to set priorities, that markets are not skilled, families are not

scared about consequences that would come from things like default and that's what this amendment says that won't be an option, default will not be an option. >> i hear you. with the exception of the fact that i think the president has used exact language that you just used about full faith and credit of the united states. i've heard him say that on television. and that he is not going to allow that to occur. but here's where i think you're a minute as well as the base bill, not the base bill that you're a minute put in place the defunding of the affordable health care act. and i ask you, do you really believe that the president is going to accept the defunding of the affordable care act as a matter of negotiations that may go on, assume for the moment

that he go shake about cutting, spinning, what have you. assuming he does that, and your need is defining the affordable care act. but do you believe that he is going to sign something that defines the affordable care act? >> i think as we've been talking about defunding and delaying the president's health care law, if you look at some the president's comments over the last few months, he has mocked the 40 votes that the house has taken. he's mocked us many times on the campaign trail a safehouses wasted all this time, voting 40 times to delay composed of the affordable care act. keep in mind, president obama himself actually signed some of those bills into law. some of those bills he mocked on the campaign trail, he signed those into law. i didn't sign it into law. clearly the president has very says problems with the health along with union leaders, not big supporters of mine over the years, but somebody, groups that come to the capital to help pass the law are saying it's

unworkable. the president himself to the way the process has given over 1400 wafers to select people. i've asked people in my district every time i'v i've meetings. ice has anybody gotten a wave from the white house? i've not found one person. 1400 people who were able to get privileges on white house got that way. the president says he wants to delay this but only for big business. all we're saying is if the president is admitting it so that he will give select groups of people are released from this bill, this is saying every american should get the same early. so if the president saying it's unworkable i will give it relates to big business, and bashes them in public sometimes but he gave employee wants to give in, i don't think he has the legal authority got he wants to give -- >> let me ask you another question. i'm very fond of the process that allows for the republican study group to be maintained.

i am an advocate that allowed that when we have a democratic study group, some of the more thoughtful members in congress after those on your republican study group with the people that participated and i know you know many of them, as people that were extremely thoughtful. the problem that i think you present when are talking about the president mocking the vote, and there were 41, not 40, soon to be 42 when we vote on this one, i understand what you say about him having signed them. but that still does not take away the fact that it is a signature piece of legislation that came from this president and those who supported. and it's not likely that he is

going to change his mind in that regard. and that's what i don't see or hear, and principally what i don't see is an alternative. so the question that i have is, what your republican study group apart, a year ago or a year and half ago, of repeal and replace? and repeal and replace used to be the mantra, and now the mantra is defined. so i ask you, do you in the study group have a plan or would we go back to the status quo? >> absolutely we do have a plan. if you allow me to give this blog, we officially unveiled out our terms of called the american health care reform act. the republican study committee has endorsed this bill. it's a bill that comprehensively addresses the problems in health care. it starts with repeating his is that the one that was discussed

or do you know about speed is not currently a cosponsor. we are seeking cosponsor but we have a number of doctors in congress. i will send you a copy spent this is the first time i've heard this. >> it does medical malpractice reform. it allows small businesses can pull together to get the same buying power as big businesses. we make sure. we make should people do with existing conditions cannot be discriminate against the attacks the lives of the unborn. we allow tax equalization. one big column now if you buy health insurance through your employer they can deduct -- >> this sounds like obamacare. >> no, no, no. unfortunately, there are fewer options than higher cost the our bill would actually lower cost. >> the condition of something that is -- >> we work through existing state high-risk pools instead of creating basically a mandate that has resulted in higher health insurance costs for everybody. that's not a solution. but when health care costs were too high already, they are higher now.

we want to lower health care costs and give families more options and that's why builders but i would love to have you as a cosponsor. it is a bill that will surely fix the problems in health care last night. >> better than that, i would love for you to be bipartisan and cross the lines and let me be a part of your republican study group. [laughter] spent i don't know if you would agree with a lot of the things that we represent. >> i would be in a position to persuade you. >> i will work on you and i will have a switch card that will be available as well. i don't think it's beyond reached. >> when ships are passing in the night, it is not like a that we are -- >> i am an optimist. and all openness we are open for all ideas. the way through health care reform is to include all good ideas from people of both parties. clearly that didn't happen with the current health care law, but it's achievable and what layout a lot of those principles and we will give you a copy of the bill. >> a lot of this is cvb.

>> would the gentleman yield? >> of course. >> if there's anyone out there that wants to shut the government down, why didn't they do it before the hearing started? [laughter] >> i've been here 12 hours. >> i am -- i'm -- i'm speechless for the reason i fully can -- confer with my colleague spent gentlemen yield back his time. is there anyone else that seeks time? is there anyone else that seeks time? i see the gentleman from florida is recognized. >> thank you, mr. chairman. i just wanted to say one thing. about almost to a net years ago this issue was before us on an appropriations bill that we decline to make that amendment in order. and i just would like to

apologize myself for member steve king abroad that amendment it here, very bravely, and we didn't make it in order, and now sort of who we are, we're going to hopefully make it in order. i think he paved the way for this, and i appreciate what he did. that's all i have to say. thank you spent the gentleman yield back his time. the chairwoman is recognized. >> thank you, mr. chairman. isn't there a rule, mr. chairman, that we are supposed to have pizza after 8 p.m.? >> as a matter of fact, there is. that would be after 8:30. >> the gentleman yield back. dr. burgess is recognized. >> thank you, mr. chairman. i do feel obligated to point out will hear about the 41 times of repeal, seven of those repeals have been signed into law by the president. when we forget about the seven times the president jettisoned his own law. people can't sign up for the because they close the window. the out of pocket caps limit, that was has been.

employer mandate, that was suspended. reporting requirements, the small business health exchange is can they won't be open until 2015 so they were delayed by a year. the deadline for insurance contracts to be in and by october 1, that was delayed and then the administrator of the center for medicare and medicaid services promise me at the end of july that all of the rates in states like texas where the federal fallback exchange is being set up would be available on september 15. mr. chairman, we are going to wrong way to september 15 right now. is endemic is critical for our country right now, and i thank the gentleman for bringing it and i yield back. >> the gentleman yield back his time. i want to thank both of you for taking time to not only prepare yourself by sitting in here probably for several hours before we got to you but taking time to represent ideas that both of you strongly believe in that will make our country stronger and better, and that

will better allow you to represent your constituency. and i hope that we have done well enough to where you want to come back at a future time, with the knowledge that we care a lot about the ideas which you have and can present to this committee. you are not excused. >> thank you, mr. chairman and members spent the rules committee then approve the rule for debate. the continuing resolution in the house. it would continue through december 15 and the fund for new health care law. a final passage vote on the bill is scheduled tomorrow. >> we go live now to the u.s. senate where lawmakers will opened the day with an hour of speeches before returning to work on an energy efficiency bill. that legislation is aimed at helping manufacturers to develop energy efficient technologies for their business. negotiations continued on the number of amendments to be offered and if an agreement can't be reached we could see the chamber move onto other business.

in the coming days both the senate and the house will also need to pass the continuing resolution that would keep the government funded past september 30. negotiations continue on that as well. live now to the floor of the u.s. senate here on c-span2. the presiding officer: the senate will come to order. today's opening prayer will be offered by reverend kolibus, pastor of st. joseph church in raritan, new jersey. the guest chaplain: let us pray. dear lord in heaven, you blessed

the creation of this great nation of women and men and today i ask for the continuance of your support and guidance on the women and men of the united states senate. bless them with the wisdom necessary to make tough decisions concerning our nation and its well being. guide them towards keeping our nation strong, free, and generous. help them to use their talents and gifts to benefit our nation and to come to the aid of those in need. may they be the best of teachers as role models for the future generations of our country. please bless them with good health and the ability to do the work that is brought before them. amen. the presiding officer: please join me in reciting the pledge of allegiance to our flag. 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 presiding officer: the clerk will read a communication to the senate. the clerk: washington d.c., september 19, 2013. to the senate: under the provisions of rule 1, paragraph 3, of the standing rules of the senate, i hereby appoint the honorable brian schatz, a senator from the state of hawaii, to perform the duties of the chair. signed: patrick j. leahy, president pro tempore. mr. reid: mr. president? the presiding officer: the majority leader. mr. reid: i would yield to the junior senator from new jersey to speak about the chaplain today. a senator: thank you, mr. president. the presiding officer: the senator from new jersey. mr. chiesa: i rise today to recognize my pastor, father kenneth kolibus, the pastor of st. joseph church in raritan,

new jersey, is serving as our guest chaplain. he is the father and spiritual leader for saint joseph and the larger community. he began his work career in new jersey. when he was 23 years old he opened ken's flowers and gifts in catheteret, new jersey. he became someone everyone depend upon. when he later received, he answered the call to the ministry and now dedicates his life to our spiritual growth. his commitment and generosity to the members of our parish is unwavering and his door is always open to anyone who seeks his guidance. the church of saint joseph is nearing the conclusion of its year long celebration of its 100th anniversary. we are fortunate at st. joseph church to have father ken as our pastor and leader and i'm happy to have him as guest chaplain today. thank you, mr. president.

the presiding officer: the majority leader. mr. reid: following leader remarks, the senate will be in a period of morning business, the majority will control the first 30 minutes. the republicans the second 30 minutes. following morning business, we'll resume consideration of s. 1392. mr. president, it was about five decades ago vice president humphrey predicted it was possible to eradicate poverty in america. in fact, this is what he said -- and i quote -- "we can banish hunger from the face of the earth." close quote. that was 1965. today in 2013, there are more than 50 million people living in the united states, including 150,000 families in nevada, who don't know where the next meal

will come from. in the richest country in the world, one in six are in danger of going to bed hungry tonight and half of those people are children. but despite these sobering numbers and despite these difficult economic times, house republicans have turned their backs on american families struggling to put food on the table. it is true the bill being considered in the holy spirit would save $40 -- considered in the house of representatives today would save $40 billion, but how would it save that $40 billion? by snatching food out of the hands of the neediest children and their family. why are there people on foods stamps? we have tried to create a safety net, mr. president, so these people have at least the basics of being able to have a meal during the day. house republicans are determined to gut the nutrition assistance programs in the name of austerity, even though nine out of ten recipients are families

with children, senior citizens, or people with disabilities. and these needy americans aren't exactly living a life of excess on the government's dime. they get about $4 in food assistance each day. now, mr. president, one of my favorite things i really like to do in nevada and here, in washington, is go grocery shopping. it's such a diversion for me. i love going grocery shopping to look around, buy the things. landra and i are without our children, and our grandchildren. we live alone. but we still buy food. and i enjoy that so very, very much. so i know, have a good idea how much $4 will buy or $4.50 to be specific. that's not money to buy, if you're lucky, a pound of hamburger. they have different grades of

hamburger. they have the expensive kind, not so expensive and the cheaper kind. even the cheaper kind you couldn't buy a pound of that most of the time. a gallon of milk, about $4. you couldn't buy them both the same day. you certainly couldn't buy hamburger and milk on the same day. it's possible making important reforms in both the farm and food stamp programs without balancing the budget on the backs of people who are hungry. but instead of cutting ways to eliminate fraud, house republicans will cut lunches for 210,000 children and eliminate food assistance for 170,000 veterans. there's another way that was done here in the senate under the direction of chairwoman stabenow. the bipartisan senate agriculture bill passed under her direction and the ranking member, and it saves $23 billion

without forcing needy children to skip meals. in our farm bill, it does it fairly. and if it came to the house of representatives floor, it would pass overwhelmingly. but you know what, mr. president? the republican leadership won't let democrats vote. that's why they'll probably pass this very, very mean-spirited piece of legislation because only republicans will be allowed to vote on it. the house republican leadership refused to pass any gill that can garn -- any bill that can garner votes from either parties. these same reckless republicans are determined to taked route of passing a c.r.. what does that do? it funds the government. instead of doing what's necessary for the economy on firm footing, republicans are obsessed with obamacare. remember, mr. president, a law

passed about four tkwraoers ago. ago -- years ago, the supreme court declared it constitutional. many good things are already working to keep people who are sick from declaring bankruptcy. it's a good piece of legislation to make america like all modern nations and have health care for everybody. but watching the republican party self-destruct -- and that's not coming from me. that's what pundits are saying all over the country -- it would be good political theater to watch them self-destruct, and that's what they're doing, if there were not so much at stake. the economic consequences of a government shutdown are deadly serious. mr. president, today when i have my news briefing, the republicans are openly fighting against each other now. senate republicans are saying we know we don't have enough votes

to get rid of obamacare, but let's send it back to the house and let them hang tough. house republicans are saying why aren't the senate republicans doing it themselves? so, mr. president, the consequences of a government shutdown are deadly serious. the economic consequences of first ever default on the full faith and credit of the united states, deadly serious. look what happened last time they threatened this. the stock market dropped 2,000 points. we lost our credit rating. it dropped. now, mr. president, anyone listening to this, don't take my word for it. the united states chamber of commerce, not noted for being this base of lib rablt on the country, wrote to members of the house yesterday saying prevent a shutdown. ease the fears of default. specifically, here's what they said -- quote -- "it's not in

the best interest of the united states or its business community or the american people to risk even a brief government shutdown that might trigger disruptive consequences and raise new policy uncertainties to washington and the u.s. economy." the quote continues, "likewise the u.s. chamber respectfully urges the house of representatives to raise the debt ceiling in a timely manner and thus eliminate any question of threat to the full faith and credit of the united states." mr. president, in spite of these warnings from the largest business organization in the country, republicans either don't realize the stakes or simply don't care. they're willing to put the nation's economic recovery at risk to make an ideological point. what remains to be seen is how many innocent americans will be hurt by their reckless political games. how many children will go to stkaol without break -- go to school without breakfast. how many workers will lose their jobs. how many seniors will lose their retirement and how many businesses will lose their hard-earned investments if

republicans tank the economy. i only hope the anarchists in the house of representativesdom their senses before it -- in the house of representatives come to their senses before it's too late. i note the absence of a quorum, mr. president. the presiding officer: the clerk will call the roll. quorum call:

the presiding officer: the republican leader. mr. mcconnell: i ask consent that the quorum call be dispensed with. the presiding officer: without objection. mr. mcconnell: mr. president, i ask unanimous consent that the senate proceed to the immediate consideration of calendar number 191, s. 1514, the saving coal jobs act. i ask unanimous consent that the bill be read a third time and passed without intervening action or debate and the motion to reconsider be laid on the table. the presiding officer: is there objection? mr. reid: mr. president, reserving the right to object, i know how important coal is to the state of kentucky, west virginia, indiana. a lot of states feel very strongly about coal. and i will be happy to work with the republican leader and others who are concerned about the coal issue in the united states to come up with a procedure where we can try to figure out a way to get a vote on this and have a reasonable debate on it. so i'll be happy to work with the leader, the republican leader on this.

based on my brief review of this, i think it is best now for me to object, and i do ofpblt. the presiding officer: objection is heard. mr. mcconnell: mr. president, i might just say we have a genuine emergency in kentucky, a depression in eastern kentucky as a result of what this administration has done and is about to further do this very week directed at the jobs and livelihood of my constituents. so it is for us a genuine emergency. the e.p.a. is due this week to announce regulations capping carbon emissions on new coal-fired power plants. it's just the latest administration salvo in its never-ending war on coal. a war against the very people who provide power and energy for our country. the e.p.a. has already stifled the permitting process for new coal mines.

the agency has done this so dramatically that they have effectively shut down many coal mines through illegitimate dilatory tactics. the e.p.a. actions ignore the thousands of people in my home state of kentucky who depend, depend on the coal industry for their livelyhoods. a former coal miner said it best in the title to his song, "coal keeps the lights on." "coal keeps the lights on." in the year president obama took office, there were 18,600 employed in the coal industry in my state. 18,600 kentuckians were employed in the coal industry in my state the year president obama took office. but as of september 201, this month, the number of persons employed at kentucky coal mines is down to 13,000. that's $18,600 when the

president took office, 13,000 today employed in coal mines in my state. and the picture is actually getting worse instead of better. this week a major employer announced 525 layoffs in eastern kentucky mines. this news ironically came out on the same day the president announced that his proposals, according to him anyway, are helping to strengthen the economy. try and tell that -- try and tell that to the hardworking coal miners in eastern kentucky that this is the way to strengthen the way. these people are now trying to figure out thousand feed their families and how to pay their bills. well, kentucky coal miners have suffered far too much already. congress cannot idly sit by and let the e.p.a. unilaterally destroy a vital source of energy and a vital source of employment.

so that is the reason that i sought a few moments ago to bring up and pass the coal jobs -- the coal savings jobs act. saving coal jobs is the single-most important thing we could accomplish in the near-term for the people of kentucky. it is a combination of two bills, both of which have languished in committee for literally months. the bill would essentially repeal the administration's declaration of war against coal. the first part of the bill would prevent the e.p.a. from regulating carbon on new and existing coal plants. the second would force the e.p.a. to stop stalling on mining permits. mr. president, it's time to act on the saving coal jobs act. the time to act is now. this is a genuine emergency in the commonwealth of kentucky.

the presiding officer: under the previous order, the leadership time is reserved. under the previous order, the senate will be in a period of morning business for one hour with senators permitted to speak fltherein for up to ten minutes each with the time equally divided and controlled between the two leaders or their designees with the majority leader controlling the first half. mr. pryor: mr. president? the presiding officer: the senator from arkansas. mr. pryor: mr. president, i rise today to talk about the farm bill. ten days -- that's all the time we have to work out some agreement on our farm legislation before we revert back to the 1949 farm policy in this country. and let me just make this very clear to the american people and to my colleagues, that this has nothing to do with the traditional battle lines in agriculture. this is not one of those midwest farming versus southern farming type things. this is not a specialty crop

versus a row crop type issue. it has nothing to do with that at all. what this is is an ideological fight where we see hyper partisanship and gridlock politics taking over the congress. today the house of representatives has a vote -- a very important vote. what they are proposing is that they cut $40 billion from the nutrition title over ten years. that's $40 billion. here again, this is not about a traditional fight that you sigh -- and you've seen for decades in agriculture here. this is about hunger in america. it is a sad fact. it is something that maybe people in this building don't like to acknowledge. but, mr. president, we have people who are hungry in this country. they may be people that we go to church with, they may be our

neighbors, they may be friends, coworkers, folks who graduated from high school with us; they could be seniors, children, or the working poor. but we have people in this country who are hungry today. can you imagine america, being the land of plenty, and having hungry people and having folks in this billing, in the house of representatives chamber, voting to not lend a helping hand when people need it the most? mr. president, i'm reminded of that great song "america the beautiful," where it starts out "o beautiful for spacious skies, for amber waves of grain, for purple mountains madg majestiese the fruited plains." and it goes on and on and on to talk about the riches of this great country. but, unfortunately, like i said, today we have way too much hunger in our nation and the congress can do something about thasm the congress can do

something about that. in fact the senate has already done something about it. thanks to senator stabenow and senator cochran and the bipartisan effort on the senate agriculture committee, they made responsible reforms in the snap program, in other nutrition programs to streamline and fix and correct and improve the nutrition title. and, you know, they went after the thongs that we'r things thad about, things like waste and abuse of the system and fraud. we all know that you have some of that in these programs, but you know we have a saving in our state, mr. president -- it's kind of a country saying; i know people heard it before. they say, if it ain't broke, don't fix it. well, our agriculture law in this country ain't broke. now, it can be improved, and i think that's what the senate has done. the senate has been responsible. the senate has worked in a bipartisan way.

again, that bill passed through this chamber a few months ago with 66 votes, a very bipartisan vote. and that's the solution here. that's the solution of us working together. unfortunately, we have, again, people down the hall in the house of representatives who are going to put that in jeopardy with a "my way or the highway" political solution. and this is not good for the country. i think the reason some of these folks are doing this is because they don't understand the impact that their decision could have on this country. but let me put it in perspective. if you look at america -- there's lots of different ways that you can look at agriculture and look at our economy and look at the global economy. but one way is this: is that we have several core strengths in the u.s. economy. we do some things here better than anybody else in the world. one of those that we do best of all is agriculture. if you look at investment, if

you look at innovation, if you look at new farming practices and ways to conserve water, how to get more per acre, all these things that improve and increase production and nutrition, et cetera, et cetera, et cetera, they come here from america. it's one of the core strengths in the u.s. economy. everybody in the world wants to be like america when it comes to agriculture. everybody wants what we have. they copy us. they model what they do after this country. it's something we should be proud of. i know inside the beltway it's not very exciting. it's not very freshy. but we have the -- it's not very flashy. we have the safest and in relative terms the cheapest food supply in the entire world. it is one of the true reasons for america's strength. but, unfortunately, if we don't pass the farm bill, a new farm bill by september 30, we run the risk of putting all that in

jeopardy. and there could be dire consequences. there's no question about it. you talk to all the experts, talk to all the economists, talk to the people who understand this, that what you can see here very clearly is that crop prices will destablize, and that means some prices will go up, some will go down. for example, soybean farmers all over this country, they're going to lose their scroo crop suppor. they're going to lose that protection that's been there since the 1940's. that will be devastating to the soybean industry. that's just one little piece of the puzzle. when you talk about we have a huge trade deficit in this country -- we know that -- but our saving grace when it comes to trade is agriculture. those export programs to try to market and export our ag commodities and our ag products overseas will be lost if this agreement is not reached. again, fruit prices will rise dramatically. we've heard others talk about it

even this morning, the democratic leader mentioned it. but it's going to hurt not only farmers, it's going to hurt families all over this country. and, you know, mr. president, this is personal to meevment i kno-- personal to me. i know in your home state of hawaii, you have a huge agricultural sector. everybody thinks of how beautiful hawaii is and tourism and all that. but agriculture is critically important to your economy, just like it is for the other 49 states. and almost every state -- maybe with one or two exceptions -- agriculture is very, very critical to that state's economy. that's true for arkansas. and again this is very personal for me. one in six jobs in our state are related directly or indirectly to agriculture. agriculture -- we love our top -- excuse me, our fortune 500 companies. we have several based in arc average we're proud of them. but -- we have several based in arkansas. we're proud of them. but 25% of our economy in arkansas is tied to agriculture.

how do we fix this? it's really something you'll yol never hear -- you'll never hear on the talk shows. the wait to fix it is to work in a bipartisan way to come together, to be very responsible, just as the senate has been, on this issue. to be very responsible, to put something together and to get it done. this is why groups in my state, like the arkansas farm bureau, agriculture council of arkansas, riceland foods, arkansas rice producers association, tyson foods, the arkansas cattlemen's association, et cetera, et cetera, et cetera -- and the list goes on -- they've all supported what we did in the senate and they don't support what's going on in the house right now. but even more important than the groups, mr. president, i have a been around my state, of course, all year, for the last ten years. but in the august recess i went around the state. i literally talked to hundreds

of farmers. they said please, please don't let this happen. don't let this happen. why do we want to put all this at risk? what we have now is work. sure, we can make improvements. yes, we support the senate bill, even though the senate bill is not perfect. we support that because we know how important agriculture is. so, mr. president, i would ask my house colleagues to please get themselves out of this manufactured crisis that they have created for u us all. let's turn offer the politics, let's work together. the american people are counting on us. with that, i yield the floor. and i suggest the -- mr. durbin: mr. president? the presiding officer: the assistant majority leader. mr. durbin: are we in morning business at this moment? the presiding officer: we are. mr. durbin: does the majority have the control for an additional period of time? the presiding officer: yes. mr. durbin: how much time is remaining? the presiding officer: 20 1/2 minutes. mr. durbin: thank you very much, mr. president. mr. president, the news out of washington is not encouraging.

it looks like we're facing a government shutdown, and the possibility of even a default on the debt ceiling. these are totally unnecessary. there is nothing that is forcing this other than the political will of some people, and both are disasters. shutting down the government, of course, runs the risk of disrupting social security payments, veterans' checks. it of course is damaging to our economy, at a time when we're recovering but slowly and we need to create jobs. it just doesn't make any sense. we're facing a deadline, obviously, of october 1 for a new fiscal year. we passed a budget in the senate here back in the end of march, if i remember correctly. senator patty murray of washington, chairman of the senate budget committee, worked flethrough a budget that passedd we then asked for the obvious.

let's have a meeting with the house. they're controlled by republicans. we have a democratic majority here. why don't we just sit down now and work out our differences shall the differences between the two -- and work out our differences, the differences between the two budgets about $90 billion, substantial for sure, but something that's at least worth sitting down and discussing. we came to the floor of the senate repeatedly asking for a chance to sit down and work it out. and, sadly, three or four senators on the other side of the aisle continued to object. they wouldn't let us sit down and talk. they wouldn't let us try to find a bipartisan solution to this challenge, and it brings us to this moment. not having agreed hon on a budt resolution, we've been unbe able to pass appropriations bills -- though they're ready in the united states senate. i know a little bit about the

this because my new responsibility in the appropriations committee is the largest single bill. the bill that i worked on with senator cochran, republican of mississippi, is a bill that covers all of the defense department and all of the intelligence agencies. and i will tell you, it is the largest and a huge portion of our national discretionary budget, almost 60%. we're ready. we prepared the bill. we're going to bring this bill before the committee and the floor and have the debate it deserves so that our men and women in uniform are well served and we acquire the protections that are necessary for america. unfortunately the same group opposed to sitting down with the house republicans and finding a compromise have objected to