program, that she has seen children put some of the food in their pockets so they can take it home for the brothers and sisters or for the weekend or for their mom and dad. so i see in this still difficult economy, when people receive $4,4.had $4.45 per day on average, people in the house want to cut an additional $40 billion. it wasn't enough that 2 billion americans could use "snap" benefits. it wasn't enough that more than 200,000 children could lose access to the free and reduced lunch price program. they can make it harder. they can say whatever they want. they can say -- well, i don't know, do they get addicted to food staches. do they dig food stamps because they don't want to work? well, the fact, is as chairwoman stabenow points out, the chair of the agriculture committee, in the next 10 years, 14 million americans will leave the "snap" program. why is that? if we don't do that. why will 14 million people leave the "snap" program?

because they'll getting better paying jobs because they don't want to be on the "snap" program. most people, they get food staches, would rather not -- stamps, would rather not. they'd rather have enough food on the table and have enough purchasing money to go to the grocery store and buy food with their own money so they can bring that food home and serve their children. that's what most people want to do. i spoke to a woman in hamilton, ohio, some -- some time ago who told me that the first early in the month she would take her son, her 9-year-old son occasionally would take him to mcdonald's or fast food restaurants, maybe once the first week in the month. the second week she could serve him, maybe serve him hamburgers, serve him meat. the third week of the month she began to scrape. this woman had a full-time job, volunteered, taught sunday school, volunteered with the sub scouts for her son, a devoted single mother. the fourth week of the month what typically happened is she looked at me in her blue eyes

and she said i say -- i'm sitting there with my son that last week of the month and he says mom, how come you aren't eating? she said, well, i'm just not hungry. she was hungry, she just had to choose at the end of the month does the money go for my son or me, and like most mothers and fathers, they choose to do it for their children. that's the backdrop. if more of my colleagues would follow the admonition of abraham lincoln and get a public opinion bath, and go out and find out not lifts that may buy them lunch and come to fundraisers but listen to what people have to say about what this means. and understand, mr. president, as, you know, and the work you've done in your state of connecticut how many -- most of these people getting benefits are children, 85% of people receiving food assistance are children or their parents or people with disabilities or seniors.

and many of them have jobs but their jobs pay $9 an hour. this isn't something they do by choice, a great majority of the cases, it's something they feel they have to do. mothers and fathers who try to give their children a better future. millions of americans who head out looking for work so they can pay their bills and put food on the table. almost 90%, 80% are made up of snap houses with the disabled and families with children. one out of six americans worry about where their next he meal is coming from. how many in this body have thought that way? they've talked to people that way, tried to put themselves in the place of somebody, 15%, 16%, 17% of americans, one out of six worry where their next meal comes from. this then the body down the howl the house of representatives, who vote it's not enough, $20 billion in cuts isn't enough, let's do $40 billion, maybe more than that. my colleagues in the congress suggest that snap participation

has grown too big. they bemoan the state of our economy that's still too high unemployment rate, we all do, i share that concern but we must do more to help jump-start the economy, i'll work with anyone who seeks to do so. mr. president, we know how important these benefits are to our brothers and sisters and from cleveland to cincinnati, from rural an lasha to -- an lashia to farmlands across this country, it's important we stand strong on this. we need a farm bill that serves agriculture, that serves rural development, that serves conservation and the environment, we need a farm bill that helps us provide energy and we need a farm bill that provides nutrition assistance. mr. president, i yield the floor. mr. reid: i ask unanimous consent that when the senate receives h. res. 59 from the house the measure be placed on the calendar number with a motion to proceed not in order until monday, september 23.

the presiding officer: is there objection? without objection, so ordered. under the previous order, the energy committee is discharged from further consideration of h.r. 527 and the senate will proceed to the immediate consideration of the bill which the clerk will report. the clerk: h.r. 527 an act to amend the helium act to complete the privatization of the federal helium reserve and so forth and for other purposes. the presiding officer: under the previous order, the substitute amendment 1960 is agreed to. under the previous order, there will be 15 minutes of debate equally divided between the senator from oregon, mr. wyden and the senator from texas, mr. cruz, or their designees.

who yields time? mr. wyden: mr. president -- the presiding officer: the senator from oregon. mr. wyden: as i said this morning, washington, d.c. seems to have an inexhaustible capacity to manufacture false crises. i'm here to say this is not one of them. if the congress does not act immediately to pass the legislation that senator murkowski and i advanced today, scores of american manufacturing and technology companies employing millions of american workers are going to find it impossible to continue their current operations. our government got involved with helium after world war i because the defense sector needed it. ever since, president after president, congress after congress has tried to come up with a policy that gets government out of the helium

business while still meeting the needs of our middle-class workers, our businesses, and our taxpayers. senator murkowski and i are here to say that our bipartisan bill does that. the reality also is, it raises some revenue. with that revenue we are able to meet -- and we talked about it in the committee -- ongoing needs, particularly for folks hurting in rural communities where the federal government owns most of the land, they're concerned about their schools and their police and their roads, and because of the good work by colleagues on the other side of the aisle, particularly senators risch and flake, we are able to secure an additional $51 million to pay down the deficit. we have seven minutes on each side, i know colleagues are anxious to vote. i'd like to yield time to senator murkowski, i thank senator cruz for his courtesy in this matter and i yield at this time to senator murkowski and i urge all colleagues on both sides of the aisle to support

this legislation that came out of our committee unanimously. the presiding officer: the senator from alaska. ms. murkowski: thank you, mr. president. thank you to the chairman of our energy committee. we've been working on this legislation for some time now, a couple years, and as the chairman has noted, what we're doing with the reauthorization of this helium program is we're getting the government out of the business of helium. we are on our way to complete a process that has been under way, effectively, in congress since 1996 and so we have an opportunity today to do the right thing, but we also have a very clear opportunity to make sure that we don't have a helium crisis, that we don't see a disruption in supply. and that's effectively what could happen if we here in the house don't act quickly, work with the senate to get this resolved before an october 1 deadline.

so the imperative of taking teag this vote here this afternoon, moving it across the line here so we can conclude -- conclude our business as it relates to the helium program, this is significant. it's important. we have a chance, again, to make a difference here. we can prevent a massive disruption to the helium supply chain. we recognize, when we're talking about helium, it's not just party balloons. we are talking truly about impact to our high-tech sector, our manufacturing sector. so many sectors of our economy that are reliant and dependent on helium. we should also, again, finish the business that we started back in 1996, fully privatize the helium business so that the government is out of the way and that truly what we're doing is helium supplies are determined by market forces.

and as the chairman has noted, we need to address other priorities here in the congress. we have done that with the revenues and the distribution that the chairman has outlined, that i have outlined previously here on the floor, and at the same time seen fit to direct a good portion of revenues towards deficit reduction. these are good, responsible decisions. our program -- or our legislation here in the senate differs from what our counterparts in the house have done. again, we end the government's intervention or activities within the helium business. we've got a thoughtful glide path out, it's legislation that, again, is not only thoughtful, it's bipartisan, it moved through the energy committee unanimously, and i'm pleased to be able to stand here today with the chairman of the energy committee urging colleagues to support this critically important legislation. with that i would yield the

floor. mr. wyden: i thank my colleague from alaska figure tickly for all the work. we await our colleague from texas. how much time remains on our side, mr. president? the presiding officer: two and a half minutes. mr. wyden: let me yield one minute to our friend who in the house has begun working on this literally years ago and we thank him for all of his efforts, the distinguished senator from massachusetts. mr. markey: i thank the senator from oregon. this bill is something that shows that the government can work, that we can work across the lines of politics in this institution. i began this bill with doc hastings, a republican from washington state in the house of representatives a year ago, it passed over there, now it's over here in the senate and the same kind of bipartisanship is working together to pass this critical bill which is central for companies like siemens' and

phillips and g.e. and just in massachusetts that support thousands of jobs in the high-tech sector. there is a shutdown that was looming but it was a shutdown in the helium industry. this is one shutdown we're going to make sure doesn't happen and i just want to thank you for making this possible because it took a lot of leadership to make sure that the house bin laden, the savings-markey bill is now over here and it's resolved in a way which every member should feel very comfortable in voting yes for because it really is going to solve a big problem that was going to hit our high-tech industry in the united states. i thank the gentleman. mr. wyden: let's have senator cruz and hopefully then we can vote. the presiding officer: the senator from texas. mr. cruz: i'm going to be brief and not take my entire time. i think the underlying extension and reform of the helium program in this bill is a good provision. it maintains the program, helium is critical for our business, our industry, for

our high-tech community and so i salute the senator from oregon, the senator from alaska for working together on this. as written, this senate bill raises $500 million over ten years in new revenue. the house bill took the revenue raised by this program and put it to deficit reduction and reducing our debt. the senate bill i think unfortunately instead of using the revenue for deficit reduction uses $400 million of the $500 million to new spending. i raised internally an objection and asked my colleagues if they could consider reducing spending in other parts of the budget to balance it given that we have nearly a $17 trillion national debt. i think the more fiscally responsible thing to do is if we have $500 million in new revenue to use it to pay down the deficit and pay down the debt. we have worked together in a bipartisan way to allow this to come to a vote. i thank the senator from oregon for agreeing to do that. i intend to vote no but i'm

hopeful in conference committee perhaps the house and senate can work together to take care of the important concerns with the helium program but at the same time demonstrate some additional fiscal responsibility which i think would be would be a win-win for everyone. mr. wyden: we have a minute and a half, i'll be brief, i thank the senator from texas for his courtesy. the bottom line here is the house bill which the senator is calling for does not get the government out of the helium business. that is the single most important distinction. we are reaching out to all those hard-hit middle-class workers in aerospace and tech and a whole host of industries, we're doing it in a way that protects taxpayers, it gets the government out of the helium business, it's legislation passed the energy and natural resources committee unanimously. i urge my colleagues to vote yes. i ask consent, mr. president, all time be yielded back and the

senate proceed to the vote on passage of the bill as amended. the presiding officer: is there objection? without objection, so ordered. the clerk will read the title of the bill for the third time. the clerk: h.r. 527 an act to amend the helium act to complete the privatization of the federal helium reserve and for other purposes. the presiding officer: the question is on passage of the bill. mr. wyden: i ask for the yeas and nays. the presiding officer: is there a sufficient second? there appears to be. the clerk will call the roll. vote:

vote:

vote:

vote:

the presiding officer: are there any senators in the chamber wishing to vote or change their vote? if not, the ayes are 97, the nays are 2. the bill as amended is passed. the senator from indiana. a senator: i ask unanimous consent that the senate be in a period of morning business until 5:00 p.m. with senators permitted to speak therein for up to ten minutes each. the presiding officer: without objection.

mr. donnelly: thank you, madam speaker. i am here today with my colleague from missouri, senator blunt, to talk about oiforts to bring some common sense to the e.p.a.'s emissions standards. it is my firm belief that we can establish emissions standards that protect our environment without hurting our economy and without hurting the pocketbooks of families in indiana and across the country. when the e.p.a. released draft standards in 2012 that would regulate greenhouse gas emissions from power plants, it was clear that the administration's standards far exceeded the level of carbon reductions that would be available using existing technology. they also fail to acknowledge that different fuel types pose different challenges when trying to reduce emissions. if we don't address these standards in a commonsense way, the affordable, reliable energy that hoosier families and

businesses depend on is in dowfnldoubtcht it is absolutelyl that the e.p.a. understand the impact of these standards, the price of their proposed regulations would ask who is aiers to pay. our amendment urges the e.p.a. to use common sense when putting together regulations by ensuring that efforts to regulate carbon dioxide emissions are realistic about existing technology and do not negatively impact our economy. our amendment states that if the e.p.a. puts together regulations to control carbon dioxide emissions from an industrial source, the e.p.a. must develop the regulations using emission rates based on the efficiencies achievable using existing technology that is commercially available. commercially available is detined as any technology with proven test results in an industrial setting. it also must be subcategorized

by fuel type. different fuel types must have different emission rates to be reflective of what is realistic for fuel producers using all available technologies. our amendment develops an nsps for carbon dioxide emissions to protect our environment while also ensuring that the regulations do not excessively burden hoosier families and businesses that rely on affordable power. the e.p.a. is scheduled to release their updated standards tomorrow. i urge them to make sure that any nsps regulation is something that reflects existing technology. we must prevent anything that would jeopardize the affordable, reliable energy that allows many hoosier families and families across our country and businesses across our country to make ends meet. again, i thank my friend, senator blunt, for his work with me on this issue.

mr. blunt: madam president? the presiding officer: the senator from missouri. mr. blunt: let me say i'm pleased to work on this with senator donnelly. this is an amendment that, as he said, requires that we categorize fuel types, that we say what works for various types of fuel as opposed to set some standard that makes it impossible for other resources we have not to be used. it says that the technology has to be commercially available. we had the acting e.p.a. director before the aappropriations committee earlier this year, and i just asked the actin acting directors this -- this rule that you're talking about, is this technology available? can somebody go out and buy this? and the response was something like, well, the parts are out there but nobody's quite put it together yet. which of course meant that the rule for the first time ever set

a standard that couldn't possibly be reached. and in states like our states -- in states like missouri and indiana, where i'm from and senator donnelly is from -- we're more than 80% dependent on coal. some of our constituents are 100% dependent on coal. and if you do things that raise those utility bills, they know it and their families know it and their community knows it. this amendment simply would force the e.p.a. to use common sense when setting standards for any facility. the new source performance standards, based upon emission limits for power plants, for refineries, for manufacturing facilities, for whatever else they could cover, just simply don't meet that commonsense standard. in fact, last march when the proposed rule went out, there were more than 2 million comments. you've got to work pretty hard

to find this rule -- and you've got to be really be dead date -- dedicated to read it and 2 million comments said this won't wonch the rule sthaid if someone wants to build a coal plant, they have to install carbon-capture technology, which according to the rule -- according to the rule -- would add 80% to the cost of electricity. 80% to the cost of electricity. now, it would overstate it a little bit initially but not very far in the future if you just got your utility bill and multiplied it by two, you're pretty close to what your utility bill would be if the proponents of this bill -- really if what they say would happen is what woul happen. how many jobs go away? how many families find themselves in stress? when cap and trade failed, the president, who'd said earlier

that under his cap-and-trade plan electric rates would necessarily skyrocket when it failed, the president said, well, there's only -- there's -- there is -- that that was only one way of skinning the cat. obviously the e.p.a. is looking for the second way to skin this cat and to impact families. it would make it expensive to do what can be otherwise done in the country's businesses and households, it would need to make a decision about that. you know what we need to be doing is look for using all of our resources in the best possible way. more american energy is a critical thing, and we ought to be doing everything we can to see how we produce more american energy, a more certain supply, easier to transition from one fuel to another, not harder, not putting one electric plant out of business and requiring that

you build an entire new electric plant. you know how you pay for an electric plant is somebody gives you the authority to pass all that cost along to the people who are served by it. there's no -- there's no free electricity out there. and it makes a real difference. when families look at this, you know, the most vulnerable families among us are the ones that are most impacted by the higher utility bill. the bureau of labor statistics said that nearly 40 million american households earn less than $30,000 a year, and in those households they spend almost 20% of their income on energy. you want to make that 30% 40r%? surely that is not the answer for vulnerable families. the e.p.a., if you read press reports today, will come out with a rule tomorrow. i hope that this amendment would become part of the law that would make that rule, frankly,

madam president, make common sense. the american people want the administration to stop picking winners and losers through the regulatory policies. if the congress wants to have that debate and change the law and do that in the open, that's one way to do it. but i think we all know that american consumers have figured out where this road takes their family, and they don't want to go there. so i -- i urge support of the amendment that senator donnelly and i are working on. common sense and real cost-benefit analysis, new standards that work are essential, not new standards that you know won't work. i'm glad to be a cosponsor of this amendment, and i urge my colleagues to join senator donnelly and i, if we get a chance to vote on it as part of this bill. and i would notice the absence of a quorum. the presiding officer: the clerk will call the roll.

quorum call:

quorum call: mr. levin: madam president? the presiding officer: the senator from michigan. mr. levin: i ask unanimous consent further proceedings of the the quorum call be dispensed with. the presiding officer: without objection. mr. levin: madam president, i'm introducing today along with my colleague, senator whitehouse, senator background begich, and r shaheen, the stop tax haven abuse act, legislation that is geared to stop the estimated $150 billion yearly drain on the u.s. treasury caused by offshore tax abuses.

offshore tax abuses are not only undermining public service in our tax system but widening the deficit and increasing the tax burden for the rest of american families and businesses. this bill eliminates incentives to send jobs overseas, it combats offshore tax abuses, raises funds to fund our programs. it could be part of an alternative deficit reduction package to substitute for sequestration this year. but it should be adopted in any event because the loopholes that we would close serve no economic purpose other than tax avoidance. that's not an economic purpose. as far as i'm concerned. and these loopholes shouldn't exist even if there were no deficit. we should close these loopholes on principle. they are blatantly unfair and we should end them regardless of our deficit, regardless whether

sequestration is in effect. but surely, at a time when sequestration is harming families, national security, life saving research, students and seniors, we should close these loopholes and dedicate the revenue to ending sequestration. the bill is supported by a wide array of business and public interest groups including the public thrans tearns coalition, so-called fact coalition, americans for tax fairness, citizens for tax justice, the afl-cio, the everyone eiu, the sustainable business council, business for shared prosperity, the south carolina small business chamber of commerce, friends of the earth, new rules for global finance, u.s. public interest research group, global financial integrity, jubilee u.s. network and public citizen. frank napp, the president and

c.e.o. of the south carolina small business chamber of commerce explained his small business support for this bill this way. he said -- quote -- "small businesses are the lifeblood of local communities. we pay our fair share of taxes and we generate most of the new jobs. why should we be subsidy deciding multinationals that use offshore havens to avoid paying taxes? big corporation, it's time to end tax haven abuse and level the playing field." the stop tax haven abuse act is a product of the investigative work of the permanent subcommittee on investigations which i chair. for more than 12 years the subcommittee has conducted inquiries into offshore tax avoidance abuses including the use of offshore corporations and trusts to hide assets and shift income abroad, the use of tax haven banks to set up secret

accounts, and the use of u.s. bankers, lawyers, accountants and other professionals to devise methods of taking advantage of tax loopholes that congress hopefully never intended. over the years my subcommittee has learned a lot about these offshore tricks and we have designed this bill to fight back by closing many of these tax loopholes and strengthening offshore tax enforcement. the 113th congress is the sixth congress in which i've introduced a comprehensive bill to combat offshore and tax shelter abuses. the number of provisions from past bills have made it into law, such as measures to curb abuse of foreign trusts, close offshore dividend tax loopholes and strengthen penalties on shelter promoters. in recent years congress has made a little progress in the offshore tax battle. in 2010 we enacted into law the

economic substance doctrine which up to then had been a judicially created policy, the law now authorizes courts to strike down phony business deals with no economic purpose other than to avoid the payment of a tax. getting the economic substance dock strin enacted was a victory many years in the making. in 2010, congress enacted the baucus-rangel foreign account compliance act or facta which is designed to flush out hidden offshore bank accounts. foreign banks have engaged in a massive lobbying effort to weaken disclosure requirements but most u.s. banks have had it with foreign banks using secrecy to attack -- attract u.s. clients and want those foreign banks to have to meet the same disclosure requirements that u.s. banks do. starting next year, foreign financial institutions will have to agree to comply with facta's

disclosure requirements which include disclosing to the i.r.s. all accounts held by u.s. persons or else begin incurring a 30% withholding tax on all investment income received from the united states. president obama, who when he was in the senate cosponsored the 2005 and 2007 versions of the bill that we're introducing today, is a longtime opponent of offshore tax evasion and just weeks ago the g-20 leaders declared international tax avoidance by multinational corporations to be a global concern and pledged to work cooperatively to end these abuses. the bottom line is that each of us has a legal and civil obligation to pay taxes, and most americans fulfill that obligation. it's time to force the tax scofflaws, the tax dodgers to

do the same and for us to take the steps needed to end their use of offshore tax heaives. it's also -- havens. it's time to recapture those unpaid taxes, to pay for critical government services, including to strengthen our education, health care, and defense, to help replace the absurd sequestration approach with an altern alternative balanced deficit reduction badges that includes revenues as one component of a balanced deficit reduction package. the bill that we're introducing today is a stronger, more streamlined version of the stop tax havens abuse act introduced in the last congress. this enhanced version includes key provisions from the last bill that have not yet been enacted into law. several provisions implementing the president's budget recommendations, and new provisions to stop the offshore

tax haven abuses featured in hearings held in bipartisan reports filed during the last congress by my permanent subcommittee on investigations. i would ask unanimous consent now, madam president, that the balance of my statement up to the conclusion be reported in the record as full as this point. the presiding officer: without objection. mr. levin: now my conclusion. madam president, offshore tax abuses eat at the fabric of society not only by widening deficits and robbing health care, education, and other needed government services of resources, but also by undermining public trust. making law-abiding taxpayers feel like they are being taken advantage of when they pay their fair share. tax laws is complicated and where most americans see an inscrutable maze, too many wealthy individuals see an opportunity to avoid paying taxes. our commitment to crack down on their tax avoidance schemes must

be as strong as their determination to get away with ripping off uncle sam and moving their tax burden onto the backs of the rest of the americans taxpayers. our nation is suffering greatly from the effects of sequestration. which were brought on by our failure to reach an agreement on a balanced mix of spending cuts and revenue increases. if we're serious about finding a solution to findless sequestration cuts and our nation's repeated budget battles, we must look at the offshore tax avoidance abuses that rob our treasury of the funds needed to pay our soldiers, to help the sick, to do research on diseases, to educate our students, and to invest in our future. putting the burden of funding our government on the backs of hardworking american families and domestic businesses while letting a sophisticated minority of multinational corporations get away with these types of offshore gimmicks is grossly

unfair. we can fight back against offshore tax abuses if we summon the political will. the stop tax haven abuse act which is the product of years of work, including hearings and reports of the permanent subcommittee on investigations, offers the tools needed to close the tax haven loopholes and to use the hundreds of billions of dollars which will come to our treasury as part of a sensible, balanced deficit reduction substitute for the damaging irrationality of sequestration. madam president, i also would ask that a summary of the bill be printed in the record following my remarks. the presiding officer: without objection. mr. levin: i thank the chair and i yield the floor. the presiding officer: the senator from vermont. mr. leahy: madam president, first i would applaud the senior senator from michigan for his persistence in this, on this matter.

he has brought the attention of the senate to it time and time again as well as the american public. let us hope that he is listened to. he should be. madam president, are we in morning business? the presiding officer: yes, the senate is in morning business. mr. leahy: madam president, as many of my current and even former staff can tell you, i'm fond of saying that i like other senators are merely a constitutional impediment to my staff. but i don't mind just being a constitutional impediment. mine is one of the finest staffs on capitol hill, and tomorrow my office will say goodbye to will goodman, one of the finest. he's going to be leaving for a challenging new opportunity. will joined my staff in january, 2010, as a legislative fellow from the

office of the secretary of defense. we barely got him to his desk and he had to jump right in both feed fiat and hit the ground running. he is a valuable member of my legislative team, working on that year's debate over the repeal of "don't ask, don't tell," but also the ratification of the new start treaty. importantly, will was a trusted staffer, willing ear. a source of support as the vermont national guard prepared to deploy for afghanistan. and then when his fellowship ended i was pleased when will accepted my offer to become my senior defense advisor. in that role he is instrumental in helping pass the national guard empowerment act, one might have longtime legislative priorities. will has been a go-to aide for many members of their staff particularly for the more than

80 members of both parties of the senate national guard caucus which i'm proud to cochair. our state of vermont, i know that vermont earns have appreciated will's steadfast commitment to our state and to the many veterans who live there and to the vermont national guard and to our state's economic development. he has always been eager to help and always been a fierce advocate for vermonters. and after nearly four decades in the senate, i've had dozens of staffers come and go, but we like to think they always remain part of what we call the leahy family. will's own family is growing. he and his wife berisha and their wonderful son mark await the arrival of their newest member early next year.

will marcus as we call him, will be the big brother. as his family grows, he's always going to be part of ours. so marcella and i wish will the best. madam president, i yield the floor and i don't see anyone seeking recognition and i suggest the absence of a quorum. the presiding officer: the clerk will call the roll. quorum call:

quorum call:

quorum call:

quorum call:

a senator: mr. president, i ask that the quorum call be

dispensed with. the presiding officer: without objection. mrs. murray: thank you, mr. president. when i read the papers across the country, it makes it look as if the issue of whether or not we are going to move forward with the implementation of the health care bill passed a few years ago is just about politics. mr. murphy: it is just a political football being tossed back and forth between the two sides. while the threats are really empty, there's no way that we're going to pass a continuing resolution that isn't going to include the funding of this vital health care law, it still gets an enor mu amount of play out there. i think it is important for us to come down to the floor and explain to the american people that this issue isn't political, that the health care law isn't just a piece of paper. the health care law is a lifeline to millions of families out there across america who have been absolutely drowning in

health care costs and an inablght to access -- and ann an inability to access the health care system over the past decades. we tint paswe didn't pass this e political points. we did it because we saw almost immeasurable human suffering out on the streets of america that this place needed to respond to. that it's just not okay that in the most affluent, most powerful country in the world about 15% of our society has the potential to go to bed sick every night because they can't afford to go see a doctor. it is not okay that 60% of the bankruptcies in this country historically have been caused by the misfortune of an individual or a family member to get sick. and so i think it's time that when we talk about the implementation of the health care law -- obamacare, whatever you want to call it -- we are talking about consequences that

are not political. they are consequences related to life or death. that is not hyperbole. there are people out there every week dying because they don't have access to our nation's health care system, which, if you can find it, is and can be the best health care system 234 in the world. there are far too many people who have no insurance or no way to access it or who are vafortly underscored and can't get the right access to it. so i just want to take you through for one minute what this is going to mean to our constituents, to your neighbors, and what it would mean if, by some mersome miracle of politice tea party gets this bill and this law is no longer the law of the land come next month. let me tell you what it already means for senior citizens living on $20,000 a year in new

britain, connecticut. today that senior citizen gets to walk into their doctor to get a wellness visit. and they don't have to pay anything out of pocket any longer. previously they d and you think that's in the a lot of money, but for somebody in connecticut who's living on a fixed income or somebody, mr. president, in delaware, that's just taking home a pretty meager social security check every week, the costs escalate when you're just trying to pay your rent or your mortgage, put food on the table, be able to gas up your car to get back and forth to see your grandkids. that extra expense of having to pay for preventive costs, that can actually make a difference. what makes more of a dinners is for those -- what makes more of a difference is for those seniors that have pretty high drug costs, one of the worst things this congress did over the past ten years was pass a prescription drug bill that had a doughnut hole sitting in the middle of t so if you paid for a bunch of drugs through the

medicare benefit, eventually you'd have to start paying out of your own pocket. thousands of dollars that senior citizens don't have. this health care bill closes the doughnut hole, eliminates half of it almost overnight and then essentially eliminates it over time. that's thousands of dollars in savings for seniors. that's medication frankly that seniors would never have been able to buy that they will now be able to access because of this law. those things go away if republicans get their way and obamacare is defunded. all of a sudden, if that happens, tomorrow senior citizens have to pay out of pocket for preventive costs and seniors who have high drug costs all of a sudden go back to having to pay 100% of the costs of generics versus 50%, which is what they're paying now. that's a real cost. what about the average family of four out there who today in connecticut is paying about $605 a month for health care? and probably a health care plan that's not even that good to begin with, probably has some significant holes in it in terms

of what it will cover. well, if this health care bill is implemented, which it will be, that number goes from $605 a month down to $286 a month for the average family of four in connecticut. let me tell you, the average family of four in connecticut living in stanford or bridgeport or norwalk or norwich, they could use that extra $300 in savings to help save for college, to help put a little bit more nutritious meal on the table, maybe to pay some back credit card bills. $300 a month is a big deal. that is the difference that this health care bill will make. $605 a month down to $286 a month in connecticut. big difference. and an even bigger difference because the health care plan they're going to get for $286 a month is going to be a good one. we're going to finally have some standardization when it comes to the benefits that you're getting so that when you go out there and buy a health care plan, in

connecticut or wherever you are, you're going to know what you're getting. there's going to be a minimum set of benefits that are going to be covered. you're going to be able to know that when you buy insurance, you're getting ambulatory patient service, you're getting coverage for hospitalization, you're getting coverage for newborn covers and lab services and rehab benefits. every plan is going to be able to cover these things. but not if the health care bill was magically repealed. all of a sudden people that were counting on that number coming down from $600 to $300 in connecticut will be paying probably $700 and $800 and they will have to continue to deal with a dizzying array of benefit packages many of just simply don't measure up to what families need. but what about betty burger? what does this mean for her? she's a constituent of mine in meridafnlt she doesn't want -- meridan. she doesn't want anyone to have to go what she went through.

she and her family had coverage through her husband's job. he switched jobs. in the week's time between the first and second job, their son was diagnosed with cancer. her son -- her husband's second job identified it as a preexisting condition and effectively refused to cover the son. the burgers lost everything. they lost their house, they lost their car, they lost their savings simply because their son was diagnosed with cancer during the one week in which the husband wasn't employed. that will never, ever happen again after this bill is implemented. no insurance plan regulated under this bill can deny a family access for health care simply because one of their family members is sick. it's unconscionable that that ever happened in this country and it will not happen again if this bill is implemented. but if the republicans get what they want and this bill is defunded, if this bill is

repealed, in that magical, fantasy world, the example of the burgers happens hundreds and thousands of times over across this country. and lastly, what about the mccullough family? another family in connecticut. little kyl mccullough, when i first met him he was 8, he's probably 10, 11 years old. he's got a very complicated disease he has to take $3,000y jexz for. he will -- $3,000y jexz for. ejections a year. and he will hit his limit soon. if he has health care, those will be covered for however long he leads it. for people who have a big, complicated illness, they're going to be covered. if the health care bill is repealed or defunded, or whatever republicans want to do, kyl mccullough's family has to pay for it out of pocket for the

rest of his life, as will thousands of other families like him. that's what the steak the stake, mr. president. it's not a piece of paper. it's not a political football. it's life and death. it's hundreds if not thousands of dollars that hardworking families throughout this country desperately need and a health care system that they need to be much more fair and much more compassionate. it's not going to happen. it is political fantasy that republicans are going to be able to defund or repeal the health care law as a consequence of the budget debates that we're going to have over the next few weeks. but let's be honest about what they are asking. they are asking for higher costs for seniors. they are asking for higher costs for middle-class families. they are asking for more bankruptcies and they're asking for more misery for the thousands of families who are struggling to keep their head above water when they deal with a complicated illness. that, mr. president, is the true reality of what's happening out there today in our health care system that is getting better by the day and will get better even

still if we move forward with the implementation of the health care law. i yield the floor and note the absence of a quorum. the presiding officer: the clerk will call the roll. quorum call:

quorum call:

a senator: mr. president? the presiding officer: the senator from alabama. mr. sessions: i would ask that the quorum call be dispensed with. the presiding officer: without objection. mr. sessions: mr. president, we continue to see that the special interest groups remain undaunted in their efforts to ram through a immigration bill that would do real damage to the wages and job prospects of working americans. that's just a plain fact. consider these economic -- the economic situation we find ourselves in now. inflation adjusted wages -- that's the way to compare wages correctly over time -- are lower today than they were in 1999. this is a steady decline. and actually new numbers indicate lower than they were since 1995. working americans are not having their wages go up, their wages are going down. median household income is lower

today -- median income, which is the best way to account for how families are doing -- is lower today than it's been every single year since 1989. the size of the work force today has shrunk to a 35-year low. we have the lowest participation -- workplace participation since 1975 and a record number of americans are on welfare, including almost one in six on food stamps. so we still have this determination, it seems, by our masters of the universe, people who know so much better that what we really need in america is more job -- more workers. i would contend it's quite plain with my unemployment and low job prospects, declining workplace participation, declining

wages, what we have a shortage of is not workers, we have a shortage of jobs. we need to put our people in those jobs. and that's a very simple concept and i think it's undisputable. that's why i care about this issue and i think we have to talk about it. and what we are talking about, remember now, is not to end immigration. we're not talking about anything like that. we're talking about maintaining the greatest immigration flow of any nation in the world, maybe the history of the world, 1.1 million a year. plus a very generous worker program, guest worker program where people come in just to work. so we can support that. but this bill that's passed the senate would have doubled the number of guest workers, increased by at least 50% over 1.5 million a year coming permanently in addition to

legalizing 11 million that entered unlawfully. and i truly believe that it cannot be sustained, that this is good for the vast majority of the american people. and what we are finding is, what we're seeing routinely is the one interest that's being omitted in all this debate is the interest of the average working american. the average citizen of this country who goes to work every day. everybody else has their interest, everybody else is raising money, they're putting ads on the television, they're spinning this and they're spinning that, but the average guy is getting hammered by this. it just is so. let me just so some of the things that are going on and i'll run through this, and i think it's important for us to know. here in "politico," september 17, it starts off saying nancy

pelosi is huddling with facebook's mark zuckerberg, top labor leaders and former a.o.l. leader steve case as members of capitol hill reform try to revive the issue, after getting hammered so badly in -- by the american people when it passed through the senate, it was pronounced dead on arrival in the house and they're trying to revive it. the article goes on to state that the house republicans bristled when a group of senators met with outside groups supporting immigration reform and formulated a campaign style strategy to target more than a hundred house republicans over the august reece re-s is, to try to pound them into submission, i guess. and despite this road -- blowback, senator schumer, the

so-called leader of the gang of eight, the leader of the gang of eight, to be frank, continued to work the phones over august recess with a clear message, please get active and get the reform back on the agenda in the house and he reached out to all of his allies to tell them to go forward and he said -- quote -- "we had a very good august. i don't think it's dead by any stretch of the imagination." well, i think he does not want it dead and i think he's working hard to keep it alive, but somebody needs to make clear to the american people it's not dead, it could be revived. there are special interests out there. traditional republican allies as well as strong democratic activists who are pushing for this legislation. well, -- so our friends say

they want comprehensive immigration reform, but what does this phrase really mean? what does it really mean? isn't that what we should ask? well, they want a large increase in future low-skilled immigration combined with immediate amnesty here ill illegal and a promise of enforcement in the future. the promise was proven to be useless. the first legislation would have only reduced the illegal flow about 25%. they promised it was the toughest bill in history but the congressional budget office, independent analysis, proved it would have only minor impact on the illegality while doubling the number of guest workers, increasing substantially the number of annual flow of immigrants who want to be here permanently plus amnesty for the 11 million.

instead of what we would normally expect to legalize over ten years, ten million, we would legalize 30 million under this bill. that's what they proposed here in the senate. well, i don't think this is good for america, and i don't think the american people want that to happen. so, well, notice that the one group not represented in all of this are u.s. citizens, the american people. in a recent interview, the president of the chamber of commerce, u.s. chamber of commerce, mr. tom donahue, a great american -- and i know him and respect him -- this is what he said is going on, and people who are concerned about this issue need to pay attention because he's one of the driving forces. he's meeting with the democrats,

he's meeting with senator schumer, he is meeting with others. he wants more workers, apparently. an agreement, i'm reading now, in businessreport.com, an agreement between the nation's business lobby and the afl-cio was crucial to passing immigration reform in the senate, says u.s. chamber of commerce president thomas donahue. he spoke yet today at a breakfast by the business group. unions are looking for new members, mr. donahue says, while businesses need both laborers and highly skilled workers, close quote. now, this is a frank statement, i give mr. donahue credit. he lays it right out here. if you want to know the forces at work here, unions believe that if we legalize people and

bring in more, they will have a better chance of adding to union members. quote -- "unions are looking for new members, said mr. donahue. that's their interest." they have forgotten the interest of their workers today, the ones that are working and having wages decline and are being laid off, but mr. donahue goes on to say -- "while businesses need both laborers and highly skilled workers." now, i'm going to say we can bring in new workers, and under the current guest worker program and our current immigration program, and we can deal compassionately with people who have been here a long time. we can do that. but not with the legislation that came out of the senate. donahue says -- "the house doesn't need to pass a comprehensive reform." listen to this, colleagues." the house doesn't need to pass a

big comprehensive reform, suggesting problems could be fixed with smaller bills. take the whole thing, go to conference with the senate, and we will build a bill." close quote. so those of us who care about how legislation is crafted can feel the hair rise on the back of our necks when you hear this, because this is exactly what they are trying to accomplish. they want the house to pass a bill or two. it's tough -- it looks like it's tough on enforcement, go to conference, take the senate bill, which is a total disaster, and build a bill that he likes, bring it back to the floor of both chambers where no amendments can be offered and ram it through, to some degree like the massive health care bill was rammed through.

that's what they want to do. and so i think the house needs to be careful about this. once you go to conference, once you start meeting with these special groups, the democrats want votes, union members want members, businesses want cheap labor, immigrant groups want to bring more and more. where is the american people in this group? who is paying for these ads they run on television? not the average guy. i don't know any average guy spending them money to run these ads. it's people who want to have interest, special interest in it. well, just a few days ago, a remarkable event happened. get this -- human resource managers for some of the nation's largest business groups -- that is, the people in charge of hiring in america -- sent a letter to the house leaders claiming that many of

our companies continue to have difficulty finding sufficient american workers. this is the letter they wrote. these are big companies. you will recognize the names. i called some of them. and they say there are not enough workers to fill certain lesser skilled positions. thus, in addition to addressing the need for more highly skilled immigrants, -- quote -- "we strongly support efforts to bolster the availability of a work force at all skill levels." they had originally tried to say this bill was designed to bring in more high-skilled workers and reduce the number of lower skilled workers because of our unemployment problems and other reasons, but they openly say they want all skills. so the question is are these businesses really ruferg from a labor shortage? are they really? byron york, writing in, i

believe, "the washington examiner," an excellent writer, looked at that question. this is what he found -- quote -- "at the same time, corporate officers seek higher number of immigrants, both low skill and high skill, many of their companies are playing off thousands of workers. isn't that something? could that be true? well, let's look at his article. pretty damning, it seems to me. so remember, this letter i just read you saying that they have to have more low-skilled workers from the human resource officials was analyzed by mr. byron york in "the washington examiner." he finds -- quote -- "the officials represent companies with a vast array of business interests. general electric, walt disney company, marriott international,

hilton worldwide, hyatt hotels corporation, mcdonald's corporation, the wendy's company, coca-cola, the cheesecake fact, johnson & johnson, verizon communications, hewlett packard, general mills and many more all want to see increases in the immigration levels for low-skill as well as high-skilled workers, in addition to a path to citizenship for the millions currently in the united states illegally." close quote. what did mr. york discover? of course, he says the u.s. immigration rate is at 7.3%, with millions of american workers at all skill levels out of work, millions more so discouraged they have left the work force altogether. in addition, at the same time the corporate officers seek higher numbers of immigrants, both low-skilled and

high-skilled, but while they are doing that, many of their companies are laying off workers. they say they need more workers. how can it be they are laying off workers? for example, mr. york finds hewlett packard, whose executive vice president for human resources tracy cheo, signed a letter, laid off 29,000 workers last year in 2012. so they want more foreign workers, and they just laid off 29,000 americans? oh, boy, that's a stunning number. look at this. it goes on. in august of this year, cisco systems, whose vice president and chief human resources officer kathleen westlock signed a letter, announced plans to lay off 4,000 in addition to the 8,000 cut in the last two years. so they have laid off 12,000

people, and now they have got -- they can't find people willing to work or can work, united technologies, who is senior vice president of human resources and organization elizabeth b. amato signed a letter. they laid off 3,000 people this year. american express, whose chief human resource officer l. kevin cox, signed a letter cutting 4,500 jobs last year. maybe they ought to try to give some of those jobs to people they laid off. maybe of them probably worked for them for 20 years or more. procter and gamble whose chief human resources officer mark f. bigger signed a letter, announced plans to cut off 5,700 jobs last year.

this is really offensive to me and i think should be to all americans. this is the kind of leadership we have from corporate america. coming in here and saying they have got to have workers, totally ignoring the fact that laying them off by the thousands well, maybe they find someone that worked for cheaper. maybe that's what the interest is. those are just a few of the layoffs at companies whose officials signed the letter, mr. york says. he goes on to say -- quote -- "a few more. toabl announce -- t-mobile announced 2,250 layoffs in 2012. archer damages of midland laid off 1,200. texas instruments laid off nearly 2,000. significant in a 1,300. verizon sought to cut 1,700 jobs via buyouts and layoffs.

marriott announced hundreds of layoffs this year. international paper has closed plants and laid off dozens. i will just note parenthetically last week, it was announced in alabama international paper was closing a plant with 1,100 people, many of whom worked there 25 and 30 years, off, out of work, plant shuttered. they are signing a bill saying they need more workers. and general mills in what "the minneapolis star tribune" called a rare mass layoff laid off 850 people. last year. there are more still, mr. york says. according to a recent reuters report, mr. york reports that u.s. employers -- quote -- "announced 50,462 layoffs in august, up 34% from the previous

month and up 57% from august of last year, 2012." close quote. well, it's difficult to understand how they can just phi demands that we ram through an immigration bill, doubling the number of workers, increasing dramatically the number of people that would be permanent residents of the united states, claiming they need workers while these very same companies, all of these, signed a letter laying off thousands of workers. we just simply have to be realistic. well, when senator schumer is meeting with business groups to pressure republicans to join him in conference, but what do conservatives thinkers have to say about senator schumer's plan? and i would just share a few

comments, and there are many more, from intellectuals and writers, some conservative, some maybe not conservative, but "the national review," the oldest conservative organization, wrote this -- quote -- " by more than doubling the number of so-called guest workers admitted each year, the bill would help create a permanent underclass of the foreign workers, the creation of a huge population of second-class workers is undesirable from the point of view of the american national interests, which would -- should be our guiding force in this matter. the united states is a nation with an economy, not an economy with a nation. i think that was very good. bill crystal, who is on the fox news, the editor of "the weekly standard" joined with rich

lowery, the editor of "the national review" in a joint editorial and went on to lay out deep concerns about the passage of this. they say -- quote -- "passing any version of the gang of eight's bill would be worse public policy than passing nothing. house republicans can do the country a service by putting a stake in its heart." close quote. victor david hansen who has written a back on immigration, is an excellent columnist in california -- quote -- "the united states may be suffering the most persistent unemployment since the great depression. there may be unemployment rate over 15% in many small towns in the american southwest, and he's right about that. american businesses may be flush with record amounts of cash, and farm prices may be at record

levels, but we are still lectured that without more cheap labor from the south of the border, business can simply not profit. peter cersenow, a member of the u.s. commission on civilian rights, who -- civil rights, who has dealt with these issues for years, and they have had hearings on them and tried to analyze the meaning and impact of these immigration flows, he wrote this -- "recent history shows that a grant of legal status to illegal immigrants results in a further influx of illegal immigrants who will crowd out low-skilled workers from the work force." will crowd out low-skilled workers from the workforce. they had hearings on this. before the federal government grants, he says, legal status to illegal immigrants, serious deliberation must be given to the effect such grant will have on the employment and earning

prospects of low-skilled americans. history shows that granting such legal status is not without profound and substantial cost to american workers. does congress care?" thomas soul, the great african-american writer, says this -- quote -- "jobs that americans will not do are in fact jobs at which not enough americans will work at the current wage that some employers are offering. this is not an uncommon situation. that is why labor shortages lead to higher wages. virtually every kind of work americans will not do is in fact work that americans have done for generations." close quote. look, salaries do make a difference.

david frohm -- quote -- "the united states is entering its sixth year of extraordinarily high unemployment, 12 million americans who want work cannot find it. millions more have quit searching. slack labor markets have depressed wages throughout the country. yet, however little workers earn, there's always somebody who wishes they earned less. and for those somebodies, the solution is import more cheap labor. but not just any cheap labor. cheap labor that cannot quit, cannot accept a better offer, cannot complain." there's too much truth in that. there's too much truth in that, and i'm concerned about it, and i think americans should be concerned about it. this is a bill that is antiworker. and president obama has said

recently that republicans want to accelerate the gap, the wealth gap between the rich and the poor. that is not so. but his own white house has been the central entity driving behind the scenes as much as they possibly can be because they don't want their fingerprints on it or they don't want it to be identified with the white house. but they have been the central entity pushing the bill. and it will have a direct impact on the wages and employment status of millions of americans, particularly low-income americans who are the ones who had their wages decline the most. professor vaurhaus at harvard is

the leading expert on immigration and wages and he has documented we've had a significant decline in wages over the last 30 years and that a significant portion of that decline is directly related to the large flow of immigrant labor into america. so, of course it's been accelerated by the illegal out occurring in our country in addition to the legal flow. we need to not pass legislation that doubles the number coming in. polls show overwhelmingly that the american people do not support a large increase in guest workers or low-skilled immigration. for instance, by a three to one margins americans earning under

$30,000 support a decrease in legal immigration, not an increase. not a doubling of it. i'm sure most don't have any idea that congress is about to pass a law that would double the amount. but the one group that's not been represented in this conversation has been the hardworking people of this country. all americans -- immigrants, millions who have come to our country and the native born alike will be hurt by an immigration plan that is guaranteed to reduce wages and permits even more lawlessness in the future. what makes america unique is the special reverence we place in the rule of law and the special faith we place in the everyday citizens. let's stay fast to those principles. let's stand firm to those principles. so let me say one more time the

heart of the american people on the question of immigration is good and decent. they are not -- and they have been misportrayed as opposing all immigration. not so. but they are concerned about the lawlessness. they believe a great nation, their nation should have a lawful system of immigration and people ought not to by the millions violate those laws. and congress and the president have failed to respond to their legitimate request year after year, decade after decade. it's time for that to end. we need a lawful system of immigration that serves our national interest, that we can be proud of, that allows a number of people to come to this country, as many as we can. but we have to know that they have a chance to get a good job, their children will have a chance to get a good job, and we're not displacing american workers who need jobs at a bit

higher wage instead of a falling wage. that's what this country ought to be about. it was not part of the bill that passed this senate that's now waiting to go to the house. the house needs to be very careful when they move forward, if they move forward with any legislation that they don't go to a secret conference committee and all kinds of provisions driven by the afl-cio and by the chamber of commerce and by la raza and by democratic politicians who want votes. they've got to be sure that's not who's writing this bill because that's who's been writing it so far. it ought not to happen. so, i want to say that the openness with which the advocates for this bill have discussed what they're trying to do is rather remarkable. i hope it's a signal to our

house members to be alert, to do the right thing as they go forward and try to move a bill that ends the illegality, that identifies what the right flow of immigrants into america is, and creates a system that will actually work in a practical way in the future and will deal compassionately with people that have been here a long time and who have tried to otherwise be good citizens and do the right thing. i would thank the chair and would yield the floor and note the absence of a quorum. the presiding officer: the clerk will call the roll. quorum call:

>> this afternoon, the house passed a rule that sets the guidelines for how the continuing resolution will be debated on the house floor. a general debate on the funding bill is expected tomorrow in the house.

quorum call:

mr. reid: mr. president? the presiding officer: the majority leader. mr. reid: i bet we're in a quorum call, is that right? the presiding officer: we are. mr. reid: i ask consent that it be terminated. the presiding officer: without objection, so ordered. mr. reid: i now ask unanimous consent that on tuesday, september 24, at 11:15 a.m., the senate proceed to executive session to consider the nomination of calendar number 203, that there being 30 minutes for debate equally divided in the usual form, that upon the use or yielding back of that time, the senate proceed to vote with no intervening action or debate on the nomination, that then the motion to reconsider be considered made and laid on the table, there be no intervening action or debate, no further motions be in order and any reemented statements be printed in the record. that president obama be immediately notified of the senate's action and the senate return to legislative session. the presiding officer: without objection. mr. reid: i ask that the

senate proceed to the consideration of three different resolutions, 246, 247, 248. the presiding officer: the senate will proceed to the measures en bloc. mr. reid: i ask consent that the resolutions be agreed to, the preamble be agreed to, the motion to reconsider be laid on the table, with no intervening action or debate. the presiding officer: without objection. mr. reid: when the senate completees its business today, it adjourn until 2:00 p.m. on monday, september 23, that follow be the prayer and pledge, the journal of proceedings be approved to date, the time for two leaderred be reserved for their use later in the day. the senate be in a period of morning business until 4:00 with senators permitted to speak for up to ten minutes each. the presiding officer: without objection. mr. reid: there will be no roll call votes on monday. the next vote will be at about 11:45 a.m. on tuesday on the confirmation of the hughes nomination. if there is no further business to come before the senate, i ask

that it adjourn under the previous order. the presiding officer: the senate stands adjourned until senate stands adjourned until hous. >> so the senate has gaveled out. earlier today members passed a bill that allowed helium to be sold from a federal union reserve. using the proceeds for operating cost. the chamber also continued work on energy efficiency bill. that legislation is aimed at helping manufacturers develop energy efficient technologies for their businesses. they could see more debate on the bill next week. in the coming days, both the senate on the both the senate and house money to pass a continuing resolution. that will keep the government funded past september 30. negotiations continue on that as well. follow the senate live here on c-span2 when members gaveled back in.

>> sometimes history doesn't remember all of the people who conceded to the story, and that certainly happens in america which all the time. we know who george washington was. we know what he did, and it's an incredible story. we don't know as well his own sister and brother-in-law, his own family members played a very active role in his success and and all that he accomplished. >> we're standing in the dining room, which is widely regarded as one of the most beautiful colonial area interiors to remain in the united states. this room sort of epitomizes everything that kenmare was intended to be. when they built this house this was to be there showplace. this was to be their crowning achievement, their statement to all of society that they had arrived, that they worked hard, they -- this is what they're capable of doing. unfortunately, can more never

got to live up to that dream. it was a tragic story in a lot of ways. they moved in kenmare and the fall of 1775 right on the day of the revolution. and so much of what was supposed to happen at kenmore, the parties, dinners, the balls, the formal affairs really never took place. in this room, the dining room, with its glorious plasterwork ceiling and its fine wallpapers and expensive paint, all of those things were meant to impress lots of visitors that would be coming here. and this room was never used as a was intended. so this is sort of a monument to all that could been but never once. >> more from historic kenmore plantation as booktv in american history tv look at the history and literary life. throughout the weekend and saturday at 7 p.m. eastern on c-span2. sunday at five on c-span3.

>> fifteen years ago booktv made its debut on c-span c-span. >> love, death and money. these are the three main human concerns. we are all keen students of love. we're fascinated by every aspect of the matter in theory and in practice. maybe not quite as much as ken starr is, but fascinating no less. >> and since then we've brought to the top nonfiction books and authors every weekend, more than 9000 others have appeared on booktv. >> including presidents. >> i wanted to give the reader a chance to understand the process by which i made decisions. the environment in which i may decisions, the people i listen to as i made decisions. and this is not an attempt to rewrite history. it's not an attempt to fashion a legacy. it is the depth to be a part of the historical narrative.

spent also supreme court justices. >> every single justice on the court has a passion and a love for the constitution, and our country, that's equal to mine. then you know that if you accept that as an operating truth, which is, you understand that you can disagree. >> and nobel prize winners. >> what's interesting is the negotiation of moral position. do no harm. love somebody. and respect yourself. all of that is reduced, simplified notions. the philosophers have spent their lifetimes trying to imagine what it is like to live a moral life, what morality is, what existence is, what responsibility is. is. >> we visited the fairs and

festivals around the country. >> booktv is light at the annual "l.a. times" festival of books on the campus of ucla in west los angeles. >> there's her signature programming, "in depth" each month. >> if you say to a child almost anywhere in this country, i've been to schools all over the country, more than 600, once upon a time, the child will stop, pause. now get their cash the check. you better have more to say after that. but that phrase is still magical. >> and every week, "after words." >> my father already in the diplomatic service, his job had been to the press attaché in belgrade. my mother wanted me to be born in prague where her mother was, and so i was born in prague and then we went back to belgrade. and then my father was recalled in 1938, and he was in czechoslovakia when the nazis marched in on march 15, 1939. >> since 1998, booktv has

shown over 40,000 hours of programming, and it's the only national television network devoted exclusively to nonfiction books every weekend. throughout the fall we are marking 15 years of booktv on c-span2. >> senate democratic leaders held a briefing earlier today on federal spending and health care law. current federal government spending runs out september 30. this is 15 minutes. >> late last week. i can't believe, you know, there's some who say probably we don't need to be here because my republican colleagues have been doing a great job of explaining the house plan. for example, senator burr has said the dumbest idea i've ever heard. a week or two ago. yesterday he reconfirmed that.

i don't know if it's a direct quote. there was each week they came from senator corker today that said i may not be a graduate of princeton or harvard, but i can count and i know that we are headed into a box canyon with no way out. so in case there's any shred of doubt in the house of usher in the minds of her house counterpart, i want to be absolutely crystal clear, any bill that defines obamacare is dead. dead. it's a waste of time as i said before. in fact, i told the speaker that last week. i'm disappointed that he's decided from what i've heard that is going to move forward with full knowledge that it's a futile effort. they are simply postponing the inevitable choice they must face.

pass a clean bill to fund the government or shut it down. the writing is on the wall and discovered anyone. house republicans pointless political games are wasting time. you've wasted more than a week trying to get to a bill that jeanne shaheen and rob portman say is important, and i believe it is. about energy. these are not just games for middle-class americans. they use the stunts to raise money and grab headlines. people in nevada and around the country are going to feel the real pain of this economic shut down. the consequences of shutdown are deadly serious. in fact, the chamber of commerce is not usually a forward going organization. that's an understatement. they issued a letter that said among other things that

republicans should step back from the brink. they shouldn't even consider closing down the government with the c.r. are -- sorry, the debt ceiling. they should forget about it. i'm trying to tie this to obamacare. they pointed out in that letter how disastrous it would be for our country. they are really putting the nation's economic recovery at risk to make an ideological point. so i'm glad to see more republican colleagues speak out against the vocal minority within their ranks. now remember, the people speaking out against the absurdity of the republican plan in the house are not just tea party activist. they are people who feel that this is wrong what they are trying to do. i agree with them. only time will tell if common sense will prevail.

mr. schumer? >> thank you, henry. i've been in washington for over 30 years. and all the years of analysis and i've never seen a group of people more extreme than the hard right republicans in the house right now. they are have always been extreme members of congress year but they have been gadflies who come and go without much of an impact. this group of extreme republicans in the house isn't just having an impact. they been handed the keys to the republican party i a reluctant leadership. they have banded together and literally handcuffed republican leadership, so they're forced to pursue an extreme agenda that defense or delays obamacare. and their my way or the highway approach is to today. in this case, the highway lease over a cliff to shutdown or a default commute of which would be devastating to the economy. republican leadership has been dragged, kicking and screaming

into a fight that they know is bad for the party and bad for the country. and they should know it's a fight they will not win. and the whole country has been dragged closer to a government shutdown and perilously close to a default on the national debt. but it doesn't have to be this way. the fact is the hard right doesn't have the numbers to run the show on their own. but its refusal by the house leadership to stand up to them, that's opened the door to the gridlock and potential economic disaster. now, when you look at the body language and the faces of speaker boehner and leader cantor, you know they know what they're doing is wrong. for the country and for their politics. and so if enough mainstream republicans will come together with democrats, we can make the hard right irrelevant, democrats want it, the white house wants it, and in their heart of

hearts, the republican leadership wants it, too. as these fiscal deadlines approach, we democrats are standing strong. we are standing together. and we are sending a strong message to the house. we will not blink. don't get into your heads that we will. we won't. don't make it part of your strategy that eventually we will cave. we won't. we are unified. we are together. you are not. not negotiate one iota when it comes to the debt ceiling. this country as we get closer to the deadline will come to the realization how bad default and not funding the government is. and speaker boehner will end up doing the right thing sooner or later. it would be better for him, his party, the country if he did it sooner. >> right now house republicans

are hard at work. mocking senate republicans on twitter and double daring them to fight for their bill to shut down the government. -- that they have no idea how this looks to families across our country. people are watching the news at night and they cannot believe that our country is cruising towards another completely avoidable absolutely unnecessary crisis. they are sick and tired of political games. they do not understand why we're coming up on another government shutdown, and instead of working with us to avoid this, republicans are actively pushing us closer. instead of passing a claim spending bill to keep the government open while we negotiate a sequester replacement, over there, they are pandering to the tea party and wasting time with efforts that have no chance of passage. and why six-month after the senate passed a budget, that

they asked us to do, and we did, and less than a few weeks before the absolute deadline, republicans still refuse to join us at the table. and instead are lurching to the right instead of meeting us at the middle. and senator reid had said, at the u.s. chamber of commerce which doesn't often side with us on fiscal issues, is getting very nervous that republicans have dug themselves into a hole that will end up hurting this is us and our economy. we send a letter yesterday to members of congress urging them not to shut the government down, not to fight over obamacare now, and not to play games with the debt limit. i think this kind of pressure will continue. i hope speaker boehner takes it to heart, because democrats could not be clear. we are not going to delay or defund health care reform, and we're not going to play games with the debt limit. we stand ready and willing to

work with republicans on a clean c.r. to keep our government open while we continue those critical budget negotiations. and the absolute want to work with anyone who is interested in long-term budget deal that puts jobs and economy first, tackles or debt and deficit responsibly, and spares the middle class. that's what the american people are expecting. it's what they want to do. it's what they want to do. is what they're fighting for. i don't hope at some point speaker boehner will bow to the inevitable, ditch the tea party and get to work with democrats and many republicans who are just as frustrated as we are today. and for the sake of our economy under families across the country, i hope that point comes before we fall into the crisis the tea party is actively pushing us towards. >> senator reid? >> yes. >> is there a way for you to just take out the obamacare provision? >> let's wait and see what they send us.

it's a moving target. we've heard all kinds of rumors that we don't have the votes that they will try to come up with another strategy so let's just wait and see. what they come up with. my two coleaders have made it extremely absolutely clear. obamacare will not be touched with anything they're doing. >> are you prepared to endure the public backlash of the shutdown in order to protect the health care law? have you thought t through what that would be like? >> yes. >> what we did be like? >> senator reid, if you look at the recent history of the debt, the only time republicans have filibustered one was when they had 60 votes and they could squeeze you. do you think if you put a clean debt limit bill on the floor that you would eventually see the republicans crack? >> right now i'm focused on the

c.r. the debt ceiling as we know it doesn't become operated until sometime in the middle part of october. maybe later in october. and so we are going to see what we need to do to get the government functioning past the end of the fiscal year ended we will bury about the debt ceiling when that time comes. >> each usually at some point individual needs at least some republican closure on the c.r. how confident are you that you can get at least six republicans to join? >> my concern is whether the republicans are going to be going pell-mell to support what the republicans have done, or will do in the house is what i should say. if they decide to do that, then they are -- [inaudible]. clearly. i think with all what senator schumer said, what i said, there's really some wrangling among the ranks. not only among the republicans from the house, by now we have battles going between

republicans in the house and republicans in the senate. so let's just wait and see if they have the stomach for closing the government. >> senator schumer? earlier this year you work with some republicans, senator mccain and others, i'm very specious. is this an area you believe you can work or have worked with them to get more votes? >> well, look, i do think there's a widespread view among the republican mainstream that this is a dumb strategy. many of them, you know, have voiced that to me, but we'll have to wait and see what happens. the hard right has a huge amount of weight in the republican party. in the house, but also in the senate. it's up in the air right now. >> [inaudible] >> yes. >> given recent history on debt

limit, obama negotiate with senate democrats, senator conrad in 2009 on the debt ceiling and then republicans in 2011. he negotiated at on the fiscal cliff, and then mcconnell in december -- why should republicans believe you now when you say you won't negotiate? >> well, the president has made very, very clear, and we have followed that up by saying we also are not going to negotiate on the debt ceiling. and we're not going to. that's very, very clear. we can pick what happened on the fiscal cliff as to how it came about. it came about. it was, at the time it was the right thing for the country and i'm glad we did it. we will just have to wait and see what happens. the ball is in their court. they don't have -- they should

have no wind behind their backs that obama will change because he's not going to. he has the country to worry about. >> senator reid? >> last question. >> what about if republicans attached to the debt ceiling instruction to force congress to act -- [inaudible]? >> we can speculate all we can here. all of you can come up with some ideas as to what they might do on the debt ceiling. i don't know. they don't know. so it's silly for us to be talking about it. thank you. >> very quickly, you're going to iowa. i wonder if you're bringing a message you are talking of here or -- >> he's running for president. [laughter] >> the last time i ran for president was 1964 in cunningham junior high school. i lost. i'm not doing it again. [laughter] >> [inaudible conversations]

>> right at a senate democrats their briefing, house republicans held their own briefing on federal spending and health care. house republicans had a vote on legislative continues federal spending past september 30 but defense the president's health care law. president obama has threatened to veto the measure. this is a half hour. >> let me thank you for being here today. today is a great day for the american people. over the last several weeks, we have all been in discussion both house and senate as to how best to publish the goals that we all believe in. and that is, number one, keeping the government open and protecting our constituents from harmful effect of obamacare. we want to thank the house leadership, speaker boehner, leader, for moving forward in such a bold fashion to put this bill on the floor tomorrow which

were in full support of. we want to thank them for listening not only to our conferences, but also to the voices and which we represent from our districts, and that's our constituents. i suspect it will happen for a strong showing in the houston more as would vote on this bill and i encourage all our house republicans to support the bill. but as we turn to the senate, make no mistake, it turns to harry reid. and the question will be posed to them. it's a choice is going to have to make. will he protect the american people from harmful effects of obamacare? or will he coldly force this upon them? the other question is that he's going to have to answer to the american people is, why is he willing to protect big business and special interest from the dangers of this health care law, and yet not protect the hard-working families of america? we have made our choice, and we are making it clear today we are here to protect the american people. now the question turns to harry

reid, what will transpire do? i'd like to turn it over to the senator from utah. >> yesterday was a great day. it was a bit of victory for the many, many millions of americans who have been speaking with the sustained voice over the last two months on this issue. i want to thank and congratulate speaker boehner for making the courageous decision to stand with my friend, representative, and my of the house colleagues who are up here with me today, and most importantly for standing with the american people to bring forward this legislation. it will keep government funded, keep everything in government funded while defunding obamacare. this is an important step, one supported by the american people. according to one recent poll, some 56% of americans believe that congress should pass a continuing resolution that funds government while defunding obamacare. we look forward to the passage of this resolution, and once

that happened with afford to the resolution coming over to the senate where we demand can we expect, we hope to have an up or down vote. so that people's elected representatives in the body can have an opportunity to weigh in on whether or not they are willing to protect the american people. both from a shutdown and from the undue risk consequences of this unwise health care legislation. thank you. >> everyone knows, everyone knows this law is not ready. listen to democrats, max baucus calls it a train wreck. howard dean says it will lead to rationing of care. it will finally change the 40 hour work week, going to hard-working americans. including the president. the president knows this is not ready that's why he delayed it for big business, said you don't have to comply with employment date. fisher dr. ping, the president sometime newspaper endorsed him

twice said an editorial three weeks ago, the lady entire law. so everyone knows this think is not ready. for nothing will ever be ready so let's do with the american people expect us to do. let's fund the government and delay a bill, delay a law that's not ready. that's bad for the country. simple as that. i just want to commend my colleague for the work he's done and the rest of the folks up there. and, frankly, our leadership or understanding we want to stay undecided american people, do what's best for this country and fund our government and make sure this law doesn't happen. >> two months ago conventional wisdom in washington said this day was impossible. and yet, i want to commend the american people and for leading for the house of representatives to stand up and vote to defunding obamacare. is a tremendous victory to the american people. and ultimately that is where this battle will be resolved. in just a matter of weeks over 1.4 million americans have

signed a national petition to different obamacare because it's the biggest job killer in this country and it is hurting americans, millions of americans were losing their jobs, who are forcibly being pushed into part-time work, 20 hours a week or seeing skyrocketing health insurance premiums and/or losing their health insurance. obamacare isn't working. with the house of representatives historic leadership, the ball now move to the senate and to harry reid. this is a moment for republicans to unite for every senate republican to stand shoulder to shoulder with the gentlemen here and republicans i in the house o have been courageous doing the right thing. this is a moment ultimately for harry reid, and the democrats, to decide for whom visit they work. in my view every elected official should listen to the american people and the american people are united obamacare isn't working but it's killing jobs, the people who are hurt the most by obamacare are the most notable among us, young

people, hispanics, african-americans go single moms. they're the ones being pushed into 29 hours a week. and so today is the day to celebrate the historic leadership of the house of representatives and today is the day to continue to get ready to move forward for every elected official in washington. to listen to the american people. >> many of you today will be writing about what happens here in washington, d.c., but the real story is about what is happening back on main street in our districts. that's the real story. town hall after town hall on heard real stories about jobs that were lost, health care coverage that was promised but now is not being delivered. and yet what we see is, is that we focus on the fight here when the fight really is about working with the hard-working american taxpayers back home. you know, the president has

talked that this is a bill that just needs a little bit of tweeting, as if it were an apple on an iphone. but the problem is that an app on the iphone when it doesn't work, game over has one meaning. game over has a total different mean we were talking about health care. and it is time that we fight together, and i just want to applaud our leadership, speaker boehner, and challenge those in the senate to stand with the american people and make sure that we turn the tide on what shouldn't have been implemented in the first place. >> this is the reason that i came to congress. the reason i came to congress after a 12 year hiatus was because this bill is so oppressive and so hurtful. both to small businesses, individuals, and i believe the american economy that i decided to come back. i'm proud to be part of this fight. what's more, i'm really proud of

my republican leadership. i'm proud of the speaker for standing up and for listening to the american people. i think it's wonderful. this really, i don't know that it's democrats against republicans. sometimes i think it's more washington establishment against main street americans. and i think that ultimately main street america has to win. one other thing i would like to just comment, the president knows can he knows that this law isn't ready for prime time. that's what he is postponed 41 out of 82 of the provisions of obamacare. that either postponed them, change them or altered and that everybody in this town knows that it is not ready for prime time. the exchanges are supposed open on october 1. none of them are ready. in arizona we are several months away. one of our community college districdistrict in arizona, the maricopa commuting college, the largest one, has already we classify 1300 full-time employees to part-time status. this is bad stuff, and we have to do everything we can to hold

it, stop it, and i hope that the president and harry reid care more about the american people and keeping government open as we do then their stubborn political pride. that's all this is about. >> well, i can tell you after august it was clear where the public in my district is. they want obamacare repealed. they want it defunded. they want to dismantle. they want it to go away. i talked to businesses. just recently i talked to a business. they have 57 employees. they're trying to get down to 49. of the business are moving full-time workers to part-time workers, and this is not unique for the first district of oklahoma. this is happening across the country to look at the jobs report that's what

thank you rematch for being here. >> to me, this is about fairness. on july 3rd, the president unilaterally delayed the mandate for his weaknesses. in august, the president and the administration had a special deal for members of congress. and even though we had some news on friday about labor unions, i would bet my bottom dollar that at some point, the administration will cut a special deal for unions.

as so, what you have the situation in which the harmful effects are posed on society. those who have political connections to the administration or the power in washington relieve those burdens from themselves and the rest of the american people holding the bag. so we have the power in congress that we can't use it for this basic principle of fairness and i don't know whether the power the person is. >> just yesterday, a senior house republicans said it's disappointing -- [inaudible] other republicans have called you a phony and a joke. how do you respond to them? >> well, i am always impressed with the courage of anonymous congressional aides. [laughter] you know, it is very easy in washington to make this about personality, to make this about

people. this is not about any of us. this is about the american people. this is about the people struggling because they can't find a job. this is the people are the hours forcibly reduce 29 hours a week and they can't feed their kids on 29 hours a week. so they're always be the back-and-forth of politics, but i could tell you one of the reasons i am proud to stand with these gentlemen here is their focus on doing our job, which is fixing the problem for the american people and bringing back jobs and the economy. obamacare is the biggest job killer in the entire country. and if you want to understand this issue would want to, it comes down to the following, president of brahma has granted waivers for members of congress. vice president obama threatening to shut down the federal government to deny those same waivers to hard-working american families? >> senator cruz, we'll give you some names. yesterday, tom griffin of

arkansas said that republicans are getting town halls. representative sean duffy said cruz and lee fight and surrender. it's time for them to pick up the mantle and get the job done. what you filibuster this on the house floor? is that the only choice you have right now quite >> i will do everything necessary and anything possible to define obamacare. anything else -- any procedural means necessary. this is the most important fight in the country and it's easy to focus on the political back-and-forth. listen, this is going to be an iterative process. in all likelihood it's not a single shot cr and everything is resolved in done. as soon as the house passes this into law, it is going to be in harry reid scored and he may

well appeal to all of this 54 democrats do not listen to the american people, to threaten to shut down the federal government, to deny american families the same special treatment the big corporations and members of congress are getting. but if that happens, it's going to go back to the house of representatives. what we need to do is we need to be making the case every day in every way to the american people. it's not about the petty political bickering. americans don't care about petty political bickering in washington. i will tell you this, if and when we win this fight, it is going to be because house republicans has set up and showed the kurds that they are showing right now that they continue to stand up. the house is the one branch of government the republicans have. [inaudible] >> well, that is a very good question.

it is worth underscoring. the continuing resolution has nothing to do with interest on the debt or a default. yesterday, the president made a reference to the default. we are not talking about that here. [inaudible] -- also a pledge to filibuster the second bill? >> well, what i said from day one, what likely has said from day one, with the gentlemen appear to have said from day one as we will not find obamacare. this is a fate of continuing resolution. i thought it was unfortunate in the president's comments yesterday. he tried to distract with an issue of debt ceiling when this is about the continuing resolution and this is about congress using the comp additional power per to rein in an overreaching executive incentive to the american people, to stand and say look, even among those who thought

this on my work, we now know it isn't. that's why you've got to labor unions running for the hills because we are seen in practice that the stated good intentions of obamacare aren't working and the losers are the american people. and we need to focus on the substance of this policy and bring back economic growth, bring back jobs and expanding opportunity for those struggling to achieve the american dream. [inaudible conversations] >> inks again for -- >> the question is there was a lot of back-and-forth about what the senate republicans might or might not do here. can you characterize what house republicans, why they were nervous, why there was this tension between the two sides and has that been resolved? >> i would hope today use the unity from the house republicans and the senate republicans. we are unified behind funding the government and stopping the harmful effects of obamacare,

100% unified behind that. clearly there are differences in strategies and personalities the senator alluded to, but we are focused. we have 11 days to be laser like focus and we will not be distracted. so we will continue pushing forward. [inaudible] -- what was said and the house republicans and how will this resolve, you know, what happened? >> what you mean what happened? we were unified behind the subject is. there has never been a doubt. [inaudible] >> you need to ask them. i thought the senator addressed it very well. i recommend that you have comments -- [inaudible] >> you know what happiness it wasn't 218 votes for the other proposals brought forward. this is something i believe

you'll see a strong majority for. frankly, the boc from democrats. with 35 democrats vote to delay the mandate and the individual mandate. as i said, democrats understand how harmful this bill is. the simple truth is they want the votes for the alternative and that is where the votes are. [inaudible conversations] >> a little more clarity if we cannot weather -- >> do you believe that speaker bodnar should abide by the house april of this comes down a second time with the majority of republicans? i see some shaking hands. >> i mean, that is clearly a question for the speaker, something he's been very forthright with and how he's going to operate the house. i heard the question asked earlier today and i imagine he was standing right about right here. i guess you are satisfied with this response then.

[inaudible] >> do you believe you should abide by house row? >> that is what he has clearly stated in the past. i thought yesterday and i think our colleagues in the house could share this as well, a resolve in the speaker of the house that was very reminiscent of his early days of being in the house. he is totally committed to keeping the government helping and protecting american families from the hardships of obamacare. and it was a very powerful resolve with much constitution. >> i have been the guy in the house that has been driving the signatures on a letter to get past it will codified within the conference. i will echo what mr. graves said. i served with speaker boehner before. he was the chairman of the education committee. i always thought he was a firebrand. i saw and i said this in

conference yesterday. i set up inside i haven't seen this kind of fire in the belly with the speakers since you were part of the gang of seven. can i do believe this is boehner to point out and i believe and taken at face value that this is a fight he is going to fight. he believes by year end we will have defunded obamacare for a year and i think he needs it. [inaudible] do you think there's any way republicans can escape the picture blamed from the american people or is there plenty of blame to go around? >> we give the president a bill that keeps government going in his political stubbornness is that when pants that he is willing to throw it all away to preserve a bill or a lot but it's not ready for primetime. even even he knows that. i would hope that the american people and the press out there would posture it as it really

is. we've all said we want to keep the government helping. we will do everything we can to keep the government going. ultimately i hope they understand, in this kind of situation, the president has what is more important to him. >> when this comes over to this and that, i do predict that republicans are going to stand solidly behind it to fund government while defunding obamacare. i would hope that maybe a handful of democrats, perhaps some of those up for reelection in red states might consider joining with us as well, especially in light of recent polling suggesting that 56% of americans think something like this is what congress should impact do, especially considering a solid majority of americans believe this law will make the family's health care situation worse rather than better. the point is that this will be a

real opportunity. we need an up or down vote. with the up or down vote we will keep other republicans and i hope we make it from democrats joining with us. now, if they reject it, if democrats in the senate rejected it, then they have to come up with a proposal. they don't have a proposal. we haven't even heard of an outline of a proposal. it is on them at that point. so yeah, especially once the house passes and need to keep government funded, once the republicans the senate have the opportunity to vote in any democrats who might join with us. if the democrats in the senate choose to reject it at that point and thereby open this great possibility you described, they've got to come up with something. >> is there a point when the real world consequences of a shutdown are too great for this particular fight? people may have fear, uncertainty. is there a point?

>> we don't want to shut down. we don't need to shut down. we should avoid a shutdown. obamacare is a lot that is going to harm people. it is not a good idea to shut down the government in order to force through the implementation of obamacare at a time when the president has said he's not going to all of the law he's made substantial changes. without statutory or constitutional authority to do so. shutdowns are bad. shutdowns are not worth it. this law is not worth causing a shutdown for. >> we have a 1:00 press event to get to. one more question. you've been very patient. >> he said a couple times an up or down vote for more clarity on what is going to happen when it gets to you while in the senate. most of the time we interpret an up or down vote as a 60-vote threshold. senator we can do that, not to get down in the weeds. >> you are going to lose that vote. the question is if democrats kill it, like you say until this

proposal, the question is, are you all going to line up 12 or 14 deep and talk this thing to september 30th? if it's a 50 vote threshold, and harry reid can make you lose that. that's all you want? [inaudible conversations] >> that said referring to an up or down vote, a vote on the merits as opposed to a motion to table. a non-debatable motion to table simply comes up and goes straight into a vote on that 51 vote threshold, not on the merits of it, but the merits of the motion to table. so that's what i'm talking about. >> thank you. >> thank you. [inaudible conversations]

be back at the white house briefing today, press secretary jake kearny called the house republican plan to defund the health care law or shut down the government a strategy for economic disaster. here is more of what he said. this is just over an hour. [inaudible conversations] [inaudible conversations] >> hello, everyone. good to have you here today. another beautiful day here in washing d.c., the nation's capitol. fabulous weather. i have a lot of toppers and i'm going to stop one. my first topper is, let's see.

yes, i will go on this order. on monday, september 23rd, the vice president and dr. jill biden will travel to colorado to view damage from recent flooding has derby recovery efforts there. the vice president's office will be releasing additional information as we get closer to mine it. topper number two, on tuesday, president obama will travel to new york to attend the clinton global initiative for he and president clinton will engage in a conversation about the benefits and future of health care reform in america and access to quality health care around the globe. i know that was confusing. i said he will travel to new york. he will be there in new york for the united nations general assembly. secondly, as you all know following on the announcement that he will be having this conversation with former president clinton about the benefits in the future health care reform. this conversation will take place one week before the

marketplace is open for business and americans who do not currently have insurance will be a lot to sign up for affordable, quality health plans that meet their needs. this conversation between the two presidents will follow up on the speech president clinton gave in early september as part of your rants of public education effort to reach americans who want to sign up for new affordable option in the health insurance marketplace is from october through march. finally, today the senate judiciary committee approved neena bullard's nomination to be a judge on the u.s. court of appeals for the district of colombia circuit. there are to highly qualified nominees pending before the senate and we urge their prompt confirmation. as you may know, bullard's career in close landmark accomplishments on behalf of women and families. she helps defend the constitutionality of the family medical leave act and helped

open the doors of the virginia military institute two female students. today, bullard is a professor at georgetown law school and i would remind you the d.c. circuit is a strong tradition of judges previously innovative scholars and that would include antonin olea and ruth bader ginsburg. some republicans raise arguments about the course workload, even though the court is more than a quarter bacon today. during the last administration had the same senators go to the ninth, 10th and 11 seats on the quarter. the same senators confirm judges to circuit courts with fewer pending appeals for an active judge them is the case of the d.c. circuit. it gathers 14 judicial nominees, including 12 but the unanimous support of the committee and we urge the senate to consider neena bullard nomination all but nominees without delay.

that was a lot of toppers. maybe we can wrap it up or i will take your questions. >> today, house speaker john boehner said the house will vote to increase the debt limit without including some spending cuts through the deficit. is the president willing to give them? >> the president has been and is willing to negotiate with republicans over a broad compromise on budget, on some ancient pending. he has put forward his own proposal to do that and he urges congress to act to make sure the government does not shut down and continues to be fun and and if necessary to pass a short-term extension of funding across levels in order to allow for further negotiation on a broader budget agreement. i would note that in keeping with his promise is in the democrats in keeping with their

promises, the president submitted a budget to represent a compromise in touch with us for democrat with broad-based deficit reduction achieved rebounds to approach. the senate passed its own budget as republican leaders insisted they not. at the time, republican leaders said we have to have regular order. we have to a situation where the house passes a budget, senate passes a budget and in accordance with regular order, a conference is established and a product is produced. except when that happens in the senate passed a budget, the house decided it did not want to join in a conference in the house republican leaders have refused to name conferees to the budget now for about six months. so that is a whiny down at the

facts here when it comes to the president's willingness to compromise, to achieve resolution and find common ground on budget issues than he looks forward to doing that in the future. on the matter of the debt ceiling, the answer is no. we will not negotiate over congress' responsibility to pay their bills that congress incurred. congress' responsibility enshrined in the united states can't dictation, which gives congress power over the purse strings here in this country to responsibly ensure that we do not default, that the united states is good, it's true to its word and that her full faith and credit will be upheld. it is unconscionable to imagine

that there is those in the congress and now apparently because he couldn't persuade them otherwise, the speaker of the house destroyed men who believe it is the right to do to threaten another recession, threaten coming in now, economic calamity in this country and the globe over their ideological desire to define or delay the affordable care act. you know, we've had this battle. that's how it works. you write legislation, perot's legislation, passed legislation. it becomes law. if people think it's inappropriate or unconstitutional they take you through the court system to the supreme court. in this case, that's what happening. the supreme court upheld the law and were implementing a lot. if members of the republican party want to continue to try to overturn the law through legislation, they can. they've been doing that nonstop for the past several years.

but they should not hold the full faith and credit of the united states hostage to their insistence that they get what they want in a manner that they couldn't get through legislation. that's our position. >> what would white house urge house democrats for a claim that feeling even though its continuation -- [inaudible] >> as i said the other day and as recently as yesterday in the staff put out administration policy says we would be willing to accept a clean cr of spending models to allow for a continued negotiation a budget deal. but we won't expect to further cut in important investments in our economy. i think it is worth noting that the house republican budget approach in the ryan budget was rejected by house republicans who could not even pass a transportation and housing no out of kameny.

i think that demonstrates that the ryan budget is not acceptable at even among house republicans. but to answer your question, we would accept a clean cr in short-term to continue negotiations over how we can find agreement overfunding the government, ensuring we are in the middle class and hoppy macro, that we are creating jobs than producing a deficit in a responsible way. what speaker boehner didn't note in his presentation today is the deficit has been coming down dramatically. it has to be half the size what took office office despite the environments economic challenges that our nation faced with the president to take office and all that we had to overlook the depression. but there is more work to be done and we can responsibly reduce their deficit in the

mid-and long-term and fun are necessary priorities to help the economy grow and help the middle class create the teen jobs here in the united states through investments in education and innovation, research and development and infrastructure. we just have to do it in a responsible way. we can't go to the nation. they shouldn't have the nation and say we couldn't get this through normal means, so we are going to threaten your job, your welfare, your security of future so we can be found obamacare delay it, a proposition , which would actually increase the deficit. so this must be all about spending. they want to increase the deficit to get with their ideologically demands. i think we have seen not just coming from here, but from all corners, including many corners of the republican party, the view that this is a bad idea. it is bad for the economy.

it's bad for the middle-class, bad for the republican party. that's where the member leaders to sort out what is good for them. what we know is this approach is that for the american people. speak not that we hear anything about government control? >> i don't have a preview beyond what i announced yesterday. the president might speak but i don't have anything more specific than that to say when we have more information we will provide it. >> in an interview with fox, president said he thought it would cost about a billion dollars -- [inaudible] and he says he suggest the united states should pay for it. i'm wondering if the united states is willing to finance a positive construction. >> i think a couple things.

he also said somebody else was responsible for the mass murder civilians and chemical weapons including children. i suppose if used poison gas to murder your own people, including the children of your own nation, you probably would deny it publicly. we are working with the russians on a framework that secretary kerry and foreign minister lover of have worked out with their teams to implement a program that would identify, verifies and remove from control the chemical weapon weapons stockpiles in the country and this is obviously a complicated piece. i don't have a cost figure associated with it. what i can tell you if it would be in the interest of the syrian people come in the interest of the people of the region, the interest of the united states

and the people of the world to see those chemical weapons that pios safely removed from syria or removed from the assad's control and destroyed so that he cannot use them again in the deplorably indiscriminate way that he used them against his own people. [inaudible] >> the folks working on the details of the plants might have more information about what it would take, what it will take to bring about the identification and transfer of ultimate destruction of the chemical weapons that we are working with our team some not. but, two things i would say is the use of those weapons is the absolute clear responsibility of the assad. the u.n. report, the inspectors report reinforces what we have been saying and what many nations around the world have agreed with us and saying that

assad was responsible for the attacks on august 21st. attempts to suggest otherwise they become farcical in their weirdness and their disassociation of established facts. but none of that matters so much as the fact that syria has for the first time in its history acknowledge and agree to rid themselves of chemical weapons. russia has obviously joined the united state in producing this framework for achieving that. it's a lot of work to be done, that this is a significant development over these past days and we are going about the business of trying to make it happen. >> are you moving towards the encounter at the u.n. between president obama --

[inaudible] >> we have no meetings scheduled as i said yesterday. we have met with the iranians or the p5+1 process. we communicate with the rain and through a variety of methods as we have said in the past. president and the new president rhouhani exchanged e-mails. it's long been the position sensor with a candidate in a matter of debate, during the democratic primaries in 2008 as well as the general election that he would as president be willing to have bilateral negotiations with the iranians provided that the arabians were serious about addressing the international community's insistence that they give up their chemical weapons programs. that is the position we hold today. the first words he uttered after

he took the oath of office included this, being the president. does he claim through deceit and counting of dissent, no you were on the wrong side of history but that we will extend a hand if you are willing to unclench her face. and that was a reference in his a nonzero address to his position, stated during the campaign and throughout his presidency that he would be willing to have direct conversations and negotiations with the radiance provided the arabians were serious about ridding themselves of the nuclear weapons program and honoring the national commitments they've made. there's a lot of interesting things said out of tehran and the new government and encouraging things. but actions are more than words. one of the reasons why we are

seeing this rhetoric is because we know because the international established as the presidents leadership behind the proposition that iran must give up a weapons program and that has been backed with the severe regime in history. they've put enormous harm on the economy and the new president has made clear he wants to or says he wants to address the problem and to do that he needs to demonstrate that he is serious about resolving this conflict with the international community. >> instead of going regular order here, i will start on the. >> can i get your reaction to the interview with iran following up on these questions, which he said that he doesn't plan to make chemical weapons. but then when he was asked

[inaudible] >> he described israel as an occupier and the server government. first of all, could you respond to his initial comments? >> well, as i was just saying an answer to rupert, there is no question that the new iranian government has been taking a different approach in the things that it has says about a lot of issues and it has taken some action that suggest a new approach. but -- i don't want to diminish that. that is obviously welcome. as i said yesterday, we are interested in testing the seriousness of those assertions, the desire, and his stated desire by the new government to improve its relationships with the international community is, knowing that the only way to do

that is to deal with this problem. so, i would put that statement in that interview in the context of other things send along those lines. and then the second question? >> the comments about israel. you called it a government when he was asked directly whether he believed it was the holocaust to dodge the question. so how do you swear? >> obviously i didn't see the whole text of the interview, so i'm taking your description of it in answering this question. these are obviously important issues than we've seen certainly from president rouhani predecessor, incredibly offensive statements with regards to israel and the jewish people. we are assessing and evaluating all the thing is the new is

saying and doing. [inaudible] >> the president is as he always is up to date on developments on this issue. i don't know that he saw the interview, but he is certainly aware of many of the things the new president has been saying. >> yesterday, the spokesperson said about the saturday deadline was to chemical weapons. he said we'd never said that was a hard and fast deadline. so do you expect to actually get a full accounting of the chemical weapons by the first deadline? >> let me be clear about that. we developed this framework because it is our sole to

prevent assad from using chemical weapons in filling this framework by removing those weapons through his control and destroying them would achieve that goal. we believe it is so serious that action needs to be taken as swiftly as possible so the assad regime can ever use these weapons again and we expect to abide by the tame lion and the free market and for russia hold the assad team to account. these are timelines supposedly are all aware some pain as complicated as was destroying it up with massive chemical weapons takes time. the framework makes the decision and this goes to between the initial information provided neisseria that would fall under a one-week timeframe and a formal cwc declaration, the chemical weapons declaration which is on a 30 day timeframe. we will evaluate serious

compliance as we see syria. the >> it doesn't necessarily indicate -- [inaudible] >> the initial provision of information and that is the one-week deadline and will evaluate compliance when we see what experience have provided and then there is a 30 day deadline in accordance with the convention. the sba at >> not asking you about the action, but about the president's performance on the economy. when the fed says the economy simply not strong enough to take the training wheels off, is that not an indictment of present policies? >> no. again without commenting on fed policy, it is some in the president says every time he speaks about the economy that he is more work to do. all the actions taken at various levels to address the severe

economic straits we witness the nation were meant to do was to help propel this economy in a different direction. >> there's other potential depression. >> the economy hasn't -- [inaudible] >> the economy is not where we need it to be. what is true is the economic policies that produce the worst secession in our lifetime headed for a global depression with the prospect of 25% unemployment created a situation when the president was taking office the nation was losing 800,000 jobs a month. the nation's economy was contracting at an annual rate of 8%. we ultimately lost more than 8 million jobs and thanks to the grit and determination and resilience of the american people, tanks to the policies put in place in the months and

years after the economic collapse, we have seen this country grows steadily and produce 7.5 million private sector jobs. by definition, that is not completion of the job in the fact is the unemployment rate is still too high. too many americans are still looking for jobs and that is why we should be investing in education, not slashing education, which republicans especially in the house they would be doing. it is why we should be in testing in our structure, to create jobs today and create the foundation for future job growth and economic growth down the line. and we should be investing in research and development and other aspects of our economy that helped grow and create jobs. instead of cutting all that in part to preserve tax breaks for corporations that are unnecessary or other privileges

that don't help our economy grow. >> on the point of education, the president signed the budget control act of 2011 the last time we had this sign into law. $2 trillion of deficit reduction. it also allows us to keep making key investments in things like education and research for the two new jobs and to assure we are not coming to abruptly while the economy is fragile. august 2011. here we are more than two years later, saying the same thing we need to invest in education. bernard yesterday said it's not keeping up. people are leaving the workforce. >> we are going to do this on crossfire when day, i promise. and let's be clear that i will be on one side and you will be on the other. but while it's true that is true today, that we need to keep tenure to invest in education. need to continue to invest in infrastructure. >> we did that according to the

president. >> as we discussed yesterday, when he to help you with your facts about what happened in 2011. there was a $1.1 trillion nondefense discretionary pack, which allowed for us to preserve key investments in education and elsewhere. there was a call for additional deficit reduction, which the president proposed a plan to do, which was balancing the republicans rejected. he was passed with finding a way to achieve that. if that was not achieved after another year, and sequester would kick into place. sequesters indiscriminate across-the-board cuts which republicans bemoaned until an alternative, including significant cut to our military readiness and cuts to head start in other programs that are vital to millions of american families across the country. so again, if you are suggesting

by this that we are to be cutting education county should say so. if that's what the republican budget proposes, that we ought not to be funding infrastructure. >> two years later the fed says -- [inaudible] >> has the economy growing? yes, it is. >> that's what he's saying. is just not growing quick enough. >> entirely we need to continue to make the key investments you have the economy grow and create jobs in he agrees entirely with those who would see the economic policies in place to help precipitate the worst financial crisis in the economic crisis in our lifetimes are mirrored by the republican proposals we see today. republicans put ideas that bring us back to policies that caused the worst job loss of our lifetimes. that's a bad idea. >> since you said you want to focus on facts coming yesterday when the president talked about how never in the history of america has the debt ceiling used to extort president.

the "washington post" looked at that, look at the facts. by going to correct that today? >> there is no question that prior to 2011 there has never been a case where one party with one ideological agenda has turned to default on the united states obligations for the first time. [inaudible] >> because of watergate, correct? no question. >> was anybody threatening to fall? was anyone sane if i don't get this, if i don't care what i want, we'll allow the economy to default. >> is days away. >> a look at the facts. go look at the history. [inaudible] >> why don't we look at what republicans said. threatening default, bad idea. >> the "washington post" says --

[inaudible] >> yeahyeah, i said it is absolutely correct that prior to 2011, no party to the budget agreement of the past had ever threatened default if it did not get its way ideologically. it did not happen. in 2011 we sat up in. the fact there were members of on capitol hill who said we should default rather than reach an agreement with president obama. i took an enormous toll on our economy. people who think this is fun and games i could tell it to people at september 2011 because of that behavior. people who struggle to pay their bills for longer than they should have because of that decision. it was a mistake -- and the american people thought is a mistake mistake and a lot of people see it as a mistake

today. >> what has the president done in the last 24 hours to prevent a shutdown or to fall? is he just up and back and watching republicans duke it out? >> he did meet with leading members of the business community. he did meet with leading members of the business community to talk about the need for all of us working together to grow the economy, to ensure the middle class is strong and getting stronger and to avoid both a government shutdown and a default. i think he cites either from the chamber of commerce. his statements across the board, including from republicans of all stripes who believe that the strategy, if you can call it that, employed by house republicans is a recipe for economic disaster and at least according to them, trouble for the republican party.

the president has made clear that he is willing to discuss to move forward on budget issues. he's put forward a budget proposal. he spent a lot of time to see many republicans who said they were interested in budget challenges and even as he has done that, we presided over economic growth and job creation and reduction of our deficit by half. he understands the need to do more, but a way that is fair to the middle class. what is not there is a shutdown. what is not fair to the middle class' default for the sake of the ideological goal i'd be funding or delay in the affordable care act. if i'm either going to take your job and make sure you lose your job or take away their access to health insurance. that's the choice. >> are you quietly rooting for

ted cruz click >> i saw someone suggested he might be a secret ally for the democrats. a lot of people have noted that the effort to defund the affordable care act is going nowhere and wasting time on it when we have urgent deadlines to protect our economy and allow it to grow and help the middle classis quixotic at best. >> speaking of obamacare and jobs lost, says that because of concerns with health care reform is cutting $330 million out of its budget that there may be jobs lost as a result, what does the president has to say to americans who may lose their jobs due to the implementation of obamacare? >> i have not seen any specifics on that particular report. there is no data that bears out the assertion the economy is

losing jobs because of the implementation of the affordable care act. what we have seen, even now -- >> i don't know the details of that story. but i can tell you is what republicans stand up and say the affordable care act or obamacare is raising health care costs, they stand there and say that with a straight face knowing that the last three years have seen a reduction in the growth of health care. the lowest increase in health care costs in 50 years. in the three years since the affordable care act was passed. okay, so the cost of health care , the rate of increase has been growing down dramatically. partly that is due to the affordable care act. what we have seen in the data is the vast majority of jobs created up to 7.8 million, vast

majority are full-time jobs, not part-time jobs as republicans and opponents of the affordable care act will tell you again, contradict and the evidence that people are only creating part-time jobs in order to -- >> there's no evidence that any jobs will be lost. >> there's no data to back that up. there is some anecdotal evidence. there's been an ongoing trend of employers, for example, shipping employees from employer-sponsored health care plans. one of the reasons we needed health care reform is to deal with a growing problem. and then when you see some employers say now we are continuing that trend, but at this time we will blame it on our new law doesn't really pass the seriousness test because this is a trend ongoing for a long time. one of the reasons why are people who cannot or do not have access to employer-based

insurance can now buy, when the marketplaces are in effect, can now buy insurance at an affordable rate. they could not buy it before. i said the other day, there was a study that just came out they showed nearly six in 10 americans who are uninsured will have access to health insurance at a cost of less than $100 per month. in the fall governors followed the republican governors in some states who have fully implemented or are fully implementing the affordable care act, including expansion of medicaid, that nearly eight in 10 would have access. that is a huge deal for those americans. it may not be huge deal for people who don't offer alternatives or care that much about whether americans get health insurance, but assert that matters to them and their families. >> you are obviously referring to speaker bonners video, is that right? this morning saying the

president is more willing to negotiate with vladimir putin envious of house republicans. >> two things. the president -- you can expect that is irrefutably false. the president spent an enormous amount of time with john on or over the years and i have no doubt and you can expect the president will be in conversations with congressional leaders and the coming days about the need to do with these pressing deadlines. but the video i thought demonstrated a little bit of prudence and three on behalf of the speaker. maybe he can explain that. >> jay, the president's ambassador at large for war crimes issue, stephen rapp said yesterday the president jay assd should absolutely be charged for war crimes. is it the policy of the u.s.

government to assad should be charged with war crimes click >> there is no doubt that the assad regime is responsible for crimes against humanity and violation of the laws of war. since the regime began its brutal campaign against the syrian people come to the united states has been cleared those responsible for atrocities in syria must be held accountable. we have worked to support offered by the international community to gather evidence that could help build a foundation for future personal accountable those as possible for those atrocities in syria. these efforts include the u.n. independent commission established by the u.n. human rights council and the theory of justice and accountability center, the organization international community established in 2012. it is our view that assad and his regime are response will for these and we have undertaken all these efforts i just described. >> so are you saying it is the policy train five should be charged with war crimes?

>> again, our position as those responsible for the atrocities in syria, atrocities that are clearly crimes against humanity must be held accountable. syria itself is not an ipc state party and have seen no realistic aspect for security council will prefer the serious situation to the icc. or agree to a u.n. tribunal system for the former yugoslavia and rwanda. but we still believe that those responsible for these atrocities must be held accountable. >> i want to ask you about some paint you said at least 20 times in the past week from that podium. he said that if assad in a network interview claimed that he did not have chemical weapons, what are you talking about? >> he has, prior to the agreement that is. government, the assad government to the russian proposition , agreed to with the united states to assad or give up his chemical

weapons. they have insisted for years that they do not possess chemical weapons. when asked if they have refused to answer or a set at different times they don't have them. i don't think anybody doubts that was their position and it has changed in the wake of the threat that the credible threat of u.s. force in response to assad's use of chemical weapons in development we've seen since then. >> u.s.a. before that it's important to have credibility to get the facts right of the podium. so i'm just asking you very specifically. you said this twice. he said the most recent one was just a one day. president assad in a taped interview in a network claiming syria did not have chemical weapons. he said that a week ago today. >> look, i don't have the transcript of the interview. >> he said exactly the opposite. he said we never said that we haven't and we never said that we don't have it. now you said twice -- i'm just asking.

was that an accurate? >> not having seen the transcript recently, he did not come as taking her work for, say we don't have them. he refused to answer the question. for 20 years theory or refused to answer the question. serious has all along it needed -- >> i'm trying to get at whether or not you are speaking correctly from the podium. he is never said one way or the other. >> there are five nations in the world cup this of theory among them have refused to sign the chemical weapon convention. [inaudible] >> what was clear from that interview and i fixed that that assad did not admit that he had chemical weapons, nor did he deny that he had been. what the world has known for 20 years in the debussy was open

for signatories is bacteria would not admit to having stockpiles of chemical weapons, even though the world knew they had to and that changed because of the pressure placed on the area by the united states and its allies. >> president rouhani said in his interview he has complete authority. does this government believes that? >> what we believe is that the dramatic effects on the ukrainian economy of the unprecedented sanctions regime has made it clear to leaders of that country that it would be in their best interest to deal with this problem. whether they will deal if it remains to be seen. the president has made it his policy for the time he ran for office and took office that he is willing to meet with and the

united states is willing to have bilateral negotiations with iran if iran is serious about addressing the problem with the international community as a source that exists, which is that iran continues to pursue a nuclear weapon. >> an assessment and trained together -- [inaudible] and who is in charge. what reproduced differently differently about rouhani than we did ahmadinejad and their relationships with the clerics and the leaders above residency in iran. >> these are excellent questions and ones that i know keeper ran experts up late at night. the only way to answer those questions is to test the assertion of the rouhani government that it wants to improve its relations with the international community including the united states. the only way to deal with that

is to solve this problem, which is come clean with the international community, rejoinder by agreeing in a verifiable way bring up the nuclear ambitions. >> tyrannically phillies 11 political prisoners -- [inaudible] rouhani also said in his interview that he would be open to social media access in iran that had been denied for years. where would you place these two developments? >> the release of prisoners is a concrete action and entertaining the idea of providing access to social media is frederick and his welcomed rhetoric and i think we are all watching very closely and with interest and less than closely and with interest to the things that the new leadership has been fading. we are very interested in testing whether or not their

desire to improve relationships with the international community will be backed up by action and we hope it is. we believe as we said all along that there is still an opportunity to resolve this issue diplomatically. it is certainly the world's interest and we continue to pursue that through the p5 plus one through various means, but actions in this case, words are no substitute for actions. we need to follow through on these openings and see how serious the iranian hour. >> there's nothing scheduled in new york. what i am more curious is that it's too early to suit just a meeting between these two particular leaders. >> i would say that no because what i noted when i did not do justice in a region of the sentence in the president's first nonzero that he has been saying all along and did so as a

candidate that he would be willing to have that meeting and he would he willing to have the u.s. meet and negotiate directly a bilateral way with your radiance at the coors for the p5 plus one, provided better rant demonstrates the seriousness about dealing with the nuclear weapons programs. and we will see. i would just say in general, it is possible, but it's always been possible the extended hand has been there for the moment the president was sworn into office. >> considering the events we've talked about. >> we've obviously notice a significant change in language and tone than the newer bringing government compared to its predecessor. it is rather germanic. but it is important when we are talking about this incredibly serious matter that a nuclear weapons program that we not just

take iran's words for it, that would back it up and see if it's real. >> the questions on syria, getting back to what we discussed earlier. forgetting the $1 billion figure that assad mentioned, it seems that two state of the early it will finance to whatever degree necessary because it is such a priority of non-proliferation, getting better these weapon enzymes and the mechanisms for which they will be stored in price is no option. whatever the price is required, it will be there. >> this is all premature. i haven't seen anything beyond what president assad has said. >> the commitment of the united states government to prioritize that in tax dollars. >> we certainly see that successfully implementing this

framework in my successfully i mean removing from his control, assad's chemical weapons and ultimately destroying is in the interest of the united states and is as a matter of cost, you know, comparatively when you talk about using military force, get them without dealing with numbers, the use of military force is costly no matter how you look at it, even when you talk about dumping of limited duration and scope. so it is profoundly in our interest and it is an economical proposition , broadly speaking, to remove successfully assad's weapons from him and destroy them. i would also say this is a goal that is an international goal and that is a goal being worked on with partner nations and worked on with fellow members of the u.n. security council.

so the responsibility for fulfilling the framework will not mess with the united states. >> you obviously know its people scrutinize syrian compliance, the first in lowest terms is providing information they are to confess. that should not be a difficult time line for the serious to me. they are to have the information itself. any slippage would suggest to people from the out either the united states might be flexible in ways that ought not to be to achieve compliance. >> the information they are deep as i should be handed over to prove seriousness through complying. >> i wouldn't disagree with that. we will evaluate syria's seriousness about alliance based on a variety of benchmarks in the first one is the seven-day deadline. >> that information is provided. >> wizard me expect syria will

uphold its responsibility to provide this initial piece of information we will value a seriousness based on both their timeliness and the content of their submission. >> can you tell us what the white house purposes and calling the appeal yesterday on the president's nomination? >> i am not aware that the white house called the hill on any nomination. you have to frame your question in a way that i can answer it. i [inaudible] >> white house officials and the fed nomination -- >> i don't have any range new for you on that or any other personal matter. you. >> jay come the stock market -- [inaudible] >> i don't comment on said policy. >> is the president have any concerns about a potential

government shut down for both would damage? >> yes. unquestionably. because history proves that it would be damaging to confidence in the u.s. economy, especially when there is even the flirtation with the fault. we sat in the summer of 2011. every economist will tell you that our economy took a hit because of the suggestion that we might actually default because the ideological demands placed on those negotiations by republicans. that was a bad outcome and wholly unnecessary and we need to make sure that we don't repeat it, which is why we should, when it comes to the responsibility, never on that of

ensuring that congress pays the bills it incurs. it should just be done and nobody should attach poison pills to it and see if i don't get my poison so, then what default happened. that is just your response to bowl. you know, that is the position we have taken because of the threat to our economy that even the flirtation default poses. >> followed up on the question never ran, is it accurate than to say that the white house is open to or preparing for a meeting? >> i mean, there are no meetings currently plan. the openness question i answered, we have been open as a general proposition to bilateral discussion with the

iranian since the president took office and that the controversial position in the democratic primaries. it's a controversial provision in the general election 2008. that was the president believed was the right one to take. it's conditioned upon iran being serious about wanting to resolve this obstacle, which is its insistence on developing a nuclear weapons program. the way to rejoin the international community and relieve the pressure on the iranian economy imposed by the sanctions regime is to come to terms with the international community and give off in a verifiable way iran's nuclear weapons program. and then move forward.

that he was willing to discuss with the priorities. i think that is consistent with what he said along and demonstrated in the negotiations with republicans and economic and budget policy. i don't have a specific item to hang on it. the decision about that pipeline, obviously, is something that is reviewed and

evaluated and housed by and over at the state department. so i think what the president said what we have been discussing earlier, which is when it comes to reaching a broader budget agreement, the president has been consistently willing to seek common ground and make reasonable concessions to what he hasn't been willing to do to stick it to the middle class to achieve the ideological agenda and priorities and reach a -- comprise that benefits the wealthiest -- corporations. as you saw in the negotiation with the speaker of the house at the end of last year. we has been willing to put forward a plan that addresses some of the stated priority. and a plan that asked for by

outside groups would reduce the significant further. do it in a way that goes beyond a sequester. allows for investment in the middle class and in the future. by doing it in a balanced way. that's the position as it ever has been. >> on immigration. the president said the other day in the interview with tell commune dough there's nothing more he can do it about -- [inaudible] high number of deportations will continue in the next three years. >> what he has said, and what he said in the interview is that there cant plan b to comprehensive immigration reform. when it comes to deportation we try to freeze them. he said, quote, would be ignoring a law i think would be difficult to defend legally.

that's not an option. that's just the case. [inaudible] >> there's no other things the white house can do? >> comprehensive immigration reform. the whole purpose of doing immigration reform in a comprehensive way is that doing it that way solve a lot of problem. helps the economy. helps the middle class, increases growth, which increase -- decreases the deficit and resolves a lot of problems around the 11 million undocumented people in this country. and provides clear path to citizenship that -- with a lot of hurdles along the way. so it was that approach that garnered a broad bipartisan majority in the senate. the speaker of the house took a break from the civil war he's engaged in with his own party and put the senate bill on the floor would gate majority in the house. then the president could seen it

in to law and the do the republican party a huge favor by removing the problem for the political future. >> on the immigration some of the groups thought that recent day after the interview that theth. -- if immigration reform isn't passed and the -- he could go down as having one of the worst records on immigration because the high level of deportation. >> the president is obligated to enforce the law. and as he said teal monogo -- they shouldn't believe there's some plan b. here that is a viable alternative to the house of representatives doing the right thing by america, and allowing a bill that has broad support across the country, that has broad bipartisan support in the senate. come to the floor so it can be voted on. do it. it won't hurt. and the benefits will be enormous for the economy, the middle class, and even for the republican party.

mr. allen? [inaudible] >> i can only expert he'll have conversations with leaders in congress about these deadline and the need for congress to do the right thing. mick sure they don't shut down the government and default. i don't have anymore details for you. the short term continuing resolution locking in sequester they believe are huge -- [inaudible] the president believes in. perhaps even worse than shut down. why is the short term cr better in the president's view? >> than shutdown? >> the administration is willing to to operate without interruption and looks forward to working with the congress on a appropriations legislation for

the remain of the fiscal year that preserves critical national priority. protects national to spur economic growth and job creation for years to go. have an alternative to a bigger budget deal, unfortunately didn't look achievable between now and october 1st. the government must not be allowed to shut down. and willing to support a short term resolution to allow time for further 0 negotiations. we have seen because of the one of the, you know, opened soic example of the house republicans inability to pass legislation, you know, the bill sort of the transportation and housing committee that was based on the ryan budget failed. house republican budget is not an option, obviously. we need negotiate further to -- spur economic growth. what did i say?

>> then april. >> the president -- allen, ari, april. >> the economic event on road before. republicans often accuse him of engaging in campaign top politics particularly in washington. can you address that concern? >> the president of the united states as of true of all his predecessor and true of his successors believe it's absolutely the right thing do to travel around the country to talk about his agenda and what we need to do in the nation to grow the economy. members of congress of both parties should cast their vote based on what they believe is right for the country.

congress and two houses of congress, it's important talk to the people who then. some are arguings that republican should get the shutdown. it's not the president's opinion. had there been any people in the white house arguing for that this time around? >> not that i've heard. look, it is not good -- it would not be good for the middle class of this country or for our general economy to see a lapse in the funding of government operation. it hasn't been in the past, it wouldn't in the near future. that's why in answer to jonathan's question, we are willing to accept a short term continuing resolution keeping

funding at current level to avert a shut down and allow us time to don't negotiate over a sensible comprise on a broader budget agreement. all that have would be easier if the house would appoint conifer rei as they said they would to negotiate the budget passed by the senate and the house, but because they haven't done that for the past six months, you know, they obviously need a little more time. we would support that short term cr. it is not our policy, and not our view that the shut down would be anything but bad. >> the debate on the hill they are fighting over -- [inaudible] what is the white house's stance when it comes to the large cut? >> as we said at the time, when this was evolving, you know, it's unconsciousble -- unconble, in our view, literally take food out of the mouths of

hungry americans in order, again, achieve some ideological goal. there's an interesting article in the "national review" that argues it's bad policy for the republicans. the conservatives are crazy to do this. they should not do it. it is wrong. this program lifts 4 million people out of poverty every year, and to punish them when we can protect the most vulnerable americans, move forward economically, grow our economy, invest in our economy and balance the deficit is terrible policy. it's insensitive. >> i'm looking at february 25th, 2013, briefing of white house.gov janet napolitano standing where you are.

all of the sudden in the mist of a possible government shut down to the -- [inaudible] one thing it says -- [inaudible] it sequester effect what happened at the navy yard. were there less patrolling officers there because of the sequester? >> i think i got this question earlier in the week, and i don't have an answer to that. i have seen some answers from people who are have in line responsibility for -- for folks at the navy or any i have yard. i would refer to you them. i'm not aware it was an issue. i think what you saw was a rather remarkably fast first responders response based on the

account i have read. having said that, i would refer you to the navy department to pentagon. [inaudible] on the financial future. with that janet napolitano said in february and again looking at the picture in october the possibility of a picture in october where will the nation stand? i think we asked at the time vulnerable she said yes. quote, unquote, yes. will the nation the shut down and other things happen -- [inaudible] there's no question, april, that it would have negative effects on millions of people and our economy. it's wholly unnecessary to entertain shutdown, again, for the purposes of, you know, achieving some empty political victory. which would turn to dust and ashes pretty quickly.

we don't need to do that. we need responsibilitily find common sense solutions to the budget challenges and not re-litigate all the battles, and in that spirit, we said that we would accept the short term continuing residence thriewtion allow for further negotiation. we also said that in the name of the economy and the proposition the united states pays the bill to meet the obligations, nobody should be entertaining for the political purpose for the prospect of default. >> the oklahoma national guard announced this week it would no longer accept benefit applications for troops in same-sex marriages despite -- [inaudible] should be available nationwide. oklahoma is joining texas and louisiana withholding. it is the president aware of this? >> i don't know the answer to the question about the

president. i would refer do you the department of defense on it. and i can take the question and we can talk about it later on. i'm not aware of the developments. >> the vice president going colorado and the -- [inaudible] obviously the president is going the united nations generally assembly on monday and tuesday, and the vice president is going out to view the damage caused by the terrible flooding in colorado, and to be with the effected families. >> again, i think it's entirely appropriate for the vice president to make the visit with dr. biden. i don't have any updates on the president's schedule. thank you. [inaudible conversations] thank you, everybody. [inaudible conversations] members presented their alternative to the health care law. which includes repealing the current law. this is 40 minutes.

[inaudible conversations] >> i want to thank everybody for coming. we're proud officially unveil our health care bill, which is called the "american health care reform act." it's a true alternative to obamacare. it's a bill that we have been working on for months with our health care working group chaired by dr. phil who i'm introdisusing. when we started the process a few months ago, we have all been strongly opposed to obamacare. we have continued to work on many different fronts to repeal, defund, and delay obamacare. we felt strongly that we need to replace obamacare with marketed base reform that lower costs and fix the problems that existed in health care before obamacare, but are actually made worse.

and cost and axe excess were always the two problems. again, both of those both cost and axis are worst under obamacare. i want to start -- step through the top line point in our bill, then have our members of the working group talk in more specific about this. first of all. we start by repealing obamacare. this is something that gives us a clean slate so question lay a new foundation and actually start addressing the problem without all the mandates and taxes that are in existing law. we spark competition to lower health care cost. we do it through a number of different means. first, we allow people to buy across state lines. consumers are good at shopping across state lines for just about every other product. they can't do it for health care. there are a number of hurled les in front of them. it you can buy car insurance from a company in another state and able to drive in your state. you should be able to go -- if you can find a good plan for your family a lower cost for

your family. just because it's in another state you shouldn't be prohibited from buying it and allow your family to achieve the savings with better health care. we allow small businesses to pool together and get the same buying power through larger corporation and association health plans. not just for small business but a family. if you're in a rotary club, and you want to pool together with the fellow members you 0 can get buying power. something you can't do right now. something that actually helps increase competition and lower costs. we put real common sense tax reform in place so we can level the playing field. right now if you want to buy health insurance for through your employer, that's where most people get private health care, one of the reasons that's that's the most atrangtive place to get your health care. the company can dedungt the cost. you as an individual can't dedpuct the cost. we changed that. we level the playing field. an individual can duct the cost

of their health care if they find a better plan. something that not only increases competition but lowers the cost of health care for families. we put in place common sense medical liability reform. want to talk about the drive of -- frivolous lawsuit. doctors tell me all the time that one of their big impediment is the threat of frivolous lawsuit. a third of the tests they are run not for the health of the patient but defend again frivolous lawsuit. it drives up the cost of health care dramatically. people don't like have to get test after test where they know it's something that is not key to their health. it's something that is more focused on preventing frivolous lawsuit. we put medical liability reform in place. outside -- you can say between 50 and $100 billion in health care costs just by putting in common sense medical malpractice reform. we expand health casket.

-- savings account. a tool that helps you lower costs and have more individual freedom in health care. our health savings account. increase the limit so people can participate nor actively in hsa. we save with people fens preexisting condition. we feel strong we take a different approach than obamacare. we actually work with an existing state high-risk pool in our bill. we put our money with our mouth is. we put up $25 billion on the bill to help fund the high-risk pool so someone with a preexisting condition can buy health insurance at market rates. there a lot of other had things in our bill that allow beam preexisting conditions to be able to buy health care at lower costs. we nut strong pro-life protections.

we have a great health care working group that worked really hard to put the bill together. with that, i want to lead off by introducing the chairman of medical doctor who practiced medicine and understand the issues we have been working on and know how to fix them with a market base solution you don't have the government telling you what to do and doctors need to treat patients. >> thank you, mr. chairman. thank you for being here. i want to thank both in policy and practice. we had nurses, dentists,

physicians, health care administrators, previous folks who worked in state legislature office. it's a wonderful group, and one of the great disappointment i've been in congress for five years. i came here specifically left my practice. i knew health care was going a huge issue in america, and i came here to help work on this issue. unfortunately we were completely shut out of the debate four years ago when the affordable care act was debated. the problem with the american health care system is not quality and not quantity. it's one i agree with. t 2700 page bill has done -- not done that. it's actually raising costs and in the end with the exception of

the expanding medicaid, may not actually expand coverage to many people. so the chairman said we need have a market-centered bill that doesn't have any mandate in it. and doesn't raise taxes. i didn't do a good job of explaining when the health care debate was going on. if you think about how health care is provided insurance that provide in the country. you have a plan that covers 160 million of us in the country. you have 58, you scent a preexisting condition because of medicare. it doesn't have that. if you're medicaid. really what we're talking about 17% of the population. 2700-page bill that is enormously complex was about 17% of the population.

and what we did was provided market - base solution for this. and i think one of the most important thing we did was to equalize the tax treatment for coverage. let me use myself. how many millions of people would benefit immediately if you treated them like a large company. expanding health casket was one of the things that we did do that. we massively expanded use of health saijt. -- savings account. we'll touch on a few things in a moment. i want to take the opportunity

to introduce my colleague and colleagues in tennessee who helped navigate the program in our state, and who is a real expert -- many of her idea in the bill. marsha blackburn. >> thank you, doctor. i also want to thank the chairman. the leadership that dr. roe and chairman have brought to this process, i think, are invaluable. indeed, they're going pay dividends for the american people. one of the things so you heard us mention, access and cost. they want to make certain it's affordable. and so we focused on those.

we mentioned what we had in tennessee. which was the experiment with public option health care, and this started in the mid '90s. it was a program called tin care. it was to help get more people in to the insurance pool. have them covered, and kind of microcause m what we have dealt with on the national basis when you look at the 46 million needing access to health insurance. what we learned was an incredibly expensive lesson. and it was that any time you roll the dice, and you gamble on having those short-term expenditures or mandates lead you to long-term savings. guess what? it never happens. as we approached access and cost, one of the provisions that

i started working on shortly after i came top congress was opening up the insurance marketplace. so you could take down those signs at the state lines and allow people to buy whatever insurance product they wanted that met the needs of their family. and indeed that is embodied in this bill. it is something that will lower the cost for individuals when you ask individuals without health insurance why do you not purchase health insurance, the number one reason is the cost factor. so this along with an expended hsa model helps to get the cost down, and allows more people to opt in to the insurance pool. as we have worked on this, the doctor mentioned, we have expertise from those who have worked in health care and indeed, we're fortune that renee

elmers came to us from north carolina as a nurse. he chairs the republican women policy committee and has been an important part of the initiative as we have worked on the obamacare replacement bill. congresswoman elmers. >> thank you. thank you to everyone who is here for the important role of replacement plan for health care coverage. as we have gone through the process. we learned to the -- listen to the american people. we understand what the american people need and want in their health care coverage. we know that as we move closer and closer to the affordable care act being rolled out, it's less assessable. more expensive, and the promises that were made to us and our americas across the country are just simply not being met. it is so important for us to be implementing all of these differents a -- aspect to the plan of action we formulated. ingbeing in health care as long

as i have been, i have listen to the concerns of my patients that i are taken care of. it's affordability. it's access to care. it's the fact they feel they might not be able to get coverage. you know, there again preexisting conditions. a perfect example. it someone loses their health care coverage, but has any number of preexisting condition. we actually implement preexisting conditions with high-risk pool and assisting state with the high-risk middle pool. and bridge the gap and move toward a time when we will eliminate the issue of preexisting conditions. we feel that states know best what their citizens need. and so we're basically empowering them with $25 billion worth of high-risk costs over

ten years. it's a very important move. the other important issue for me, representing forth brag and our military. are for our veterans. and, you know, as it is right now. if you receive va services, you cannot contribute under obamacare to a health care savings account. they will be empowered to do so. even over and above the service thrais receiving. most importantly, what this health care plan does, one, it's 1891-pages. a lot less than what the affordable care act is. but also, it's a starting point. this is a starting conversation that we're going having with the american people on a good, sound plan to not only help with health care coverage, but bringing down the cost of health care all together. and again, i've been honored to be part of the working group. i want to introduce another member of the health care field,

dr. john from louisiana who has worked incredibly on this effort and has been so important to the contributions. thank you. >> thank you ranae. great to be here with you. the business owner who has to cover hundreds of people even today in their health care insurance as well as my own family. the health care lead us the point and the need for reform. yes, we form. we came here to reform health care. and that was we needed to reform? we saw the encroachment of government in to health care damaging it, making it less effective and more expensive over a period of time. and so we came here to put in to it the kind of market reform we

knew would make health care more affordable and available. instead, we got, of course, obamacare. now you probably have heard in the last couple of days some very good friend of president obama turn away from obamacare. reign -- warren buffett, a good friend of obama said this, he said that obamacare is a tapeworm, tapeworm on this nation's economy. he said what congress should have done was to lower the cost of care first and then try to expand to others. instead, government has taken over one sixth of the economy, and attempted in a very grand and grandiose way may be even with human beingous to expand health care without doing a thing to lower cost. what is the net result? the net result is that you'll have many more people carrying

cards but no doctors or hospitals that will be in a position to accept those. that's with a we need to fix. that's what the bill is about. one area i have taken great interest in is health savings account and expansion thereof in 2003 and 2004, like all other business owners, i saw my employee cost going up. the subscriber cost, the premium cost were going up by double budget. i heard of something called a health savings account. i gathered all of my employees together and said i want to tell you what my plan is. my plan is that instead of paying the 15% increase of premium, we're going keep the premium where it is by raising your deductible. i'm going it tki would have to n your personal health savings account. and we're going do it year over year. and i had a lady raise her hand

and say, doc, that's not going work for me. i said why? because the cost of my inhalers are more than i will receive each month. and so sort of flip antly said let me suggest you stop smoking the saves on your inhalers and the extra money i'm going put your money pretax for your health care, i think you're going to be net better off. i forgot about that exchange, about three months later, i bump in to her she said doc, you were right. i topped smoking. i threw away my inhalers and making a bunch of money. that's the way we save cost. invest the individual patient and consumers to the savings. and if we do that, by factor of 330 million americans, just think what it will do with the jefer all cost. we want to bring consumers back in to it. we want it to be a patient-centered plan.

we want to be market-driven. one which we have transparency. health care providers compete on price and quality and consumers can make those valuable choices. that is the way, folks we're request -- going to get health care costs done. health care savings account among other tools we have here will go a long way to get us all in the category of lower health care costs. again, i thank you. i want to yield to my good friend, todd. for a few remarks. >> thank you, doctor. thank you, doctor. i want to thank my fellow members of the working group. good afternoon to you. i'm one of the few members of the working group that has no professional health care experience. no professional health care training. and so i wondered when it was doctor ask me to be a part of this i was as a former secretary of state supposed to conduct recount on the closed vote members were going have.

and that the point i want to say that we have very robust discussions. they were good, positive ones. they weren't unlike the same discussions that the nation is having around health care right now. we in the last several years. i did a lot of consumer protection. in the experience, i was able to bring to the table some important point. the doctor focused on one. in order to be a good consumer and protected consumer you have to have the power and the skill set to do those kinds of things to make good judgment. to make good decisions. the other thing you have to have is good education.

when it comes to the ability to make good health care decisions. for example, any one of us could go down the street and know the price of a set of four tires at good year, fire san stone anywhere else. we make a value decision -- i don't believe it has to be in a minute complicated than that in health care. there are certain emergencies that come up. we don't care what the price is. we have to get to the close e health care provider we can. we haven't been allowed as consumers to apply the skill set that we have as americans.

knew you can know the price in medicare whether across the street from each other or across the country from each other. that information will drive the rest of the health care system in to price transparency. and empowered with that information we'll will able to apply our skill set, our god consumerism to health care decision and automatically and very quickly be to be drive down costs. that's what we mean by free market consumer-driven approach. to our very real health care cost problems. with that i would like to introduce our last speaker. a good friend of mine, not only a health care provider in the state of arizona for many years,

but the owner of a health care providing organization. that's dr. paul gosar. >> i'm happy everybody showed up. i wouldn't like to thank steve for putting us together and empowering us to have our ideas come to the forefront. then also, to phil. leadership is about empowering those sitting at the table to come up with solutions, debate, and defend what you're putting on the table. do you know actually has been under government-run health care the longest? native americans. they are exempt from the aca. it's interesting in my 25 years 30% of my patient base were native americans who came to see me when they could get the treatment free.

they are providing free market standards and want to go to patient-centered patient-friendly type of health care system. that's great about the solution we're putting on the table. i'm one of the people that want to seat markets -- i want to level the playing field. i'm one of the people that put forward. the allowing the federal government to break the monopoly of the insurance company put to see the best of insurance company i want to see what they can give us as choice and opportunity. those are things that will drive the marketplace. when we make the health care decisions, and yes, i did market -- we want to see choice and defined benefits. comparing apples to apples. then we want to be empowered with our own dollar. that's magical about putting it together. is it perfect? >> no. it's a great starting point. that's what america wants. health care is a personal sport. you own it. you have to embrace it. you have to be part of it. you have to be able, just like my friended to said, we have to

be better consumers. we have to be better patient. thank you for having me. we want to open it to any questions you have. [inaudible] we put the working group together and wanted the scrapper minds you have seen sit down and work through the different good idea floating around for years and pull together a comprehensive bill that addresses the problem we want to tackle. especially cost and access. we want to take the time to get it right. we had a motion to recommit

obamacare. i served on nrng and commerce. the committee went in 2009. i have still in my office. my markup of the bill. it kept growing and growing. there are so many flags of problem it is would create. the motion to recommit came. we had an alternative on the vote on the house floor. to bring forward the alternative and, you know, frankly wasn't one that was developed in it was not a lost opportunity. i think a lot of us felt strongly that there is a really good smart conservative way to fix the problems in health care. we want to bring it forward. we want to show the american people the contrast. i think, steve, you got the bill. you can bring me both bills. i think it's important see both. we have read through it. american families are finding out more and more. nancy pelosi said you have to pass a bill to find out. this is the bill. this is obamacare. we know what is in it.

how many devastating things are in it. this is our bill. a straightforward common sense approach that is not a government take over. it's a market base approach fixing the problem in health care. as opposed to government takeover approach. you have irs agents getting to the middle of health care decisions. i adopt think many americans seeing the scandal trust the irs. yet they're in the bill. we take the irs out in this bill. we actually repeal an replace obamacare in this bill. i think it's important have the contrast. we felt passionately that when we put our ideas on paper, on conservative lugeses to health care problems this will be a great contrast we're proud to bring to the american people. when you have people like [inaudible] and you have james hoffa saying that obamacare is going to be a devastating to the middle class 30-hour workweek. he sees what it's doing to the union employees to see it

passed. they are calling on it to be repealed. i think something is happening in america. it's a good revolution. >> we say one thing before we take the next question. does anybody this this room think that access has been improved since that bill has passed and cost has gone down. i would ask that question to anybody. i think you have to say no. let me point out some of the unintended consequences downstream if it stays in effect. i'm from a town with a medical school. i was on the faculty there for thirty years. right now in what is happening is that we are cutting graduate million education funding. there are other a thousand young doctors that graduated from medical school the last may and june that could not find a resident sincerity. that's one of the things. the demand that all corrects, small officers, large officers for the electronic health record.

we nay were at the point in the career they didn't want to. they couldn't see they could pay for it. they quit. they looked for the exit. you're going to see doctors. you're seeing it right now across the country. access is actually going down. the reason i speak to personally. my doctor quit. i experienced it myself. you're going hear the stories over and over again. [inaudible] you have an alternative going to the 40-something repeal funds on bureaucracy this drk obamacare this week. what is your message how important it is to have a vote on your proposal? ..

the very beginning of this bill, repeal of obamacare. the president site recognized and 40 votes to repeal obamacare, try to trivialize it, that there's something wrong with the house taking the to repeal obamacare. president obama himself has signed into law seven of those bills. say it is a waste of time. the president himself has signed seven of those bills to appeal is is also part of the loss.

clearly he sees there is merit. the fact he admitted this thing is unworkable by saying he wants to delay implementation but only for businesses and only for insurance companies. what we say appears that the president agrees with us this was unworkable, don't just give a break to businesses and insurance companies. extended break to all american families and that is repeal. [inaudible] >> there is a formal commitment. we pushed our leadership to let them know this is coming. now that it is that we are going to, number one, interested and her membership in rnc and the members that are caused answers of this bill and we have interest from other members. i've been approached by non-rc commissioners. as we build momentum behind this bill, a lot of momentum will continue to grow and ultimately we will push today but on the house floor to the regular is.

>> are you speaking to committee chairs as well at the committees of jurist diction that could possibly hold a hearing on that? >> the committee jurisdiction would have different components. tax components with judiciary ways and meanings. energy commerce would have jurisdiction. i've are detected fred upton, our chairman about that. he likes the fact we are bringing the bill forward. again, there is interest beyond the rc. but we got together and said this is important to us. we want to bring that forward and take a step and not by the committee has done such a great job in bringing these ideas together. ibm mac [inaudible] or is it something that will be turned into reform to the dca? >> this would've been a really good health care bill even if

there was no obamacare. we want to have it cleaned displayed. the important thing is to remember the president himself admitted when he brought obamacare that cost access would be a problem. the problem with obamacare is his tone makes them both worse. in louisiana, young people -- the party talk to people putting quotes together for insurance in january. young people, 25 to 35 years old was a 400% increase in health insurance. families in louisiana will face 50% increases in health insurance because of obamacare. so his bill went the opposite way, broke the promises he made. health insurance costs go higher. the president promised if you like it you can keep it. millions of americans lose health care. the units are now saying the bill out to be repealed. >> if we can't get rid of it

come at this something we would propose this reform? >> limits the first of all hopefully this will be a good metaphor to explain the problem. the thing about obamacare, it is not fixable or repairable. it's kind of like a skyscraper built on a terrible foundation. you can't fix it. you have to tear down and start over again. so there is no way we can take this measure or any other and six obamacare. it is not based on the free market. it is based on government making all the decisions. i believe secretary sebelius has over a thousand individual specific powerful decisions, taking much of the power away from congress itself to make those decisions. and then of course we have the independent payment advisory board, which is 15 unaccounted law appointed individuals, not

necessarily health care providers who will be making any decisions on health care costs and rationing and even democrats now admit is no longer a battle over truth. the other side, howard dean the other day admitted the source file. he's a pediatrician who actually supports the go. so there is no way we can implement a true market east measure that would be affect nerves and so we fully repeal obamacare. you can have something market-based, something patient centered on top of a giant comet bureaucratic structure that is run by the government. it mixes like oil and water. so it is important that we eventually fully repeal obamacare. whether it's only a delay for the next year, our ultimate goal of course is to fully repeal it. if you talk to democrats, they

don't like obamacare either. why? they think it is as unstable and unusable as we do. they want to push of a single-payer system, which of course would be more like what is in canada and great britain, where rationing is an everyday event. hopefully gives you a better idea that it's not fixable. it has to be taken down folate and ready to go back to the drawing board so to speak. >> let me say one thing. the reason this is getting so much pushback now. this is a huge bill right here did not have a single republican idea that was allowed in here. we have 80 amendments and none of them are to the bill. therefore we had no input whatsoever, what the chairman just said was this was an open process. i would absolutely welcome democratic ideas to this bill to make it better. no question about it. i say this every time.

i never understood the day i got here is why in the world health care is republican or democrat issue. it is a people issue. i've never treated a republican democrat cancer in my life. i've never seen a republican or democrat heart attack in my life. that was a mistake made from day one with the spillway here and that's why the american people don't approve of it. half the population's didn't get a chance or have the congress didn't get a chance to have any input whatsoever from this bill. on an imac [inaudible] >> -- can't discriminate based on preexisting condition and how much money they can charge you if you are a smoker based on your age. did they get that same sort of certain native people? >> first of all, he didn't put it -- the money where his mouth was like we did. but he gestated through

mandates. mandates have actually raised costs for everybody. so if somebody with a preexisting condition is paying too much, that's a problem. but she don't fix it by raising everybody else to be that high as well. putting $25 billion where her mouth is in working on what the state high-risk pools already there, that actually gives people with preexisting conditions options to buy a market rate and not just one option. they have multiple options because they can work through their existing association health plans. they can work for rotary clubs are chambers of commerce. there's a lot of options for people with preexisting conditions to buy health care market rate. already imac [inaudible]

[inaudible] >> i don't quite understand that. >> remember now, let's say you are working in my office than whatever reason you have to leave, you have a preexisting condition. the current rules, if you have a continuation of service or care, in other words a plan, a preexisting condition you have to exhaust right now before you can then go out and buy an insurance plan that doesn't deny you any care for your preexisting condition. what we are going to say is you don't have to do that anymore. if you can find a better plan immediately that's a lot less expensive, you can do that without exhausting this

extremely expensive -- cobra is an expensive way to buy health insurance and people can afford it. back to your comment about preexisting conditions. we heard this comment on the house floor and it didn't make any sense how bad are the individual market in new york, the price is going to go down by 50% in the market when the affordable care act came out. i looked into that. i couldn't believe that because i decide anything else going on in the country. 1.2 million people for an individual and small group market in new york state that put no preexisting conditions, no lifetime limits, same thing you see now 10 years later 120,000 in the market. today 20 million people, 61,000 furneaux can afford it. exactly what we talked about, government mandates untrue and forced the cost at so high. if you bring a bunch of healthy

young people into the market and make them pay about more for something that they don't need, then the price will come down a little bit. [inaudible] >> -- saying there is nothing inherent on the ideas that have been around for years. what is your response to that? >> air prop of the critics who want to exempt themselves with obamacare while trying to push it. i would say a lot of these ideas we are bringing forward or ideas talked about for a long time. some of them are new ideas. they are all ideas of people across the country have wanted for a long time, but are just not law. if you've got a good idea that's been waiting for 20 years and it's still not law, we are saying stop waiting. people want to buy across state lines. consumers know how to shop around and find a good deal. one thing phil roe talks about all the time, there are people who don't drive across five lines of traffic to save 2 cents

in gasoline. the law puts barricades in front of them. if they agree it's a good idea, then why is it not law? you will see prices go down. you'll see consumers able to have more choices and you'll see access to good health care increasing. those are all things that president obama promised. this helps fulfill the promise in a market-based system with a lot of good ideas i would agree. none of those are law breakdown. idea mike [inaudible] >> common sense is keeping it civil. people gravitate around common sense and i think i'm proud to say these have been around because they engage in the health care profession as well as my colleagues, patients and providers. common sense is to come to the

forefront and that's what washington has forgotten. it doesn't take this complexity to fix a broken system. it takes something temple that america can gravitate around and an imitation. >> thank you all for coming. clearly the beginning of a long conversation to finally replace obamacare with market-based reforms a lower cost. i want to thank members of the health care working group in rnc and we look forward to pushing this through until it is signed into law. >> sometimes history doesn't remember all the people who contributed to this story and that certainly happens in american history all the time. we know who george washington was. he would know what he did and it's an incredible story. we don't always solve his own sister and brother-in-law come his own family members take an active role in his access and all that he accomplished.

>> we are standing in the dining room at kenmare, which is widely regarded as one of the most beautiful colonial area into a still remaining in the united states. this room sort of epitomizes everything that kenmare was intended to be. this was to be there showplace. this was to be better crowning achievement, sort of their statements while a society that they had arrived, that they had worked hard, they built themselves up and this is what they are capable of doing. unfortunately, kenmore never got to live up to that dream. it was sort of a tragic story in a lot of ways. they moved into kenmore in the fall of 1775, right on the eve of the revolution. so much of what was supposed to happen at kenmare, the parties, dinners,, formal affairs never took place. this room, the dining room at the glorious plasterwork ceiling

and find wallpapers and expensive paint on the trends, all of those things are meant to impress lots of visitors coming here and this room is never used as it was intended. so it is a monument to all that could then but never was.