or medicare? to we -- do we pay our troops, fund border security? or do we pay for education? these are all tough, tough choices. make no mistake about it, if the debt ceiling is not lifted, we can't immediate all our obligations. so, madam president, the chances of this are not 80%, but they are close enough to 50% that anyone who risks this, particularly for this forlorn goal, we won't raise the debt ceiling unless we repeal obamacare, which we know isn't happening, is madness. risk the economy of the united states, the be possibility of going through worse than what we went through in 2008 because you demand obamacare be repealed when you know it won't happen? wow. i have rarely seen such madness coming out of legislators but it is coming out of a few.

so the consequences, madam president, of failing to raise the debt ceiling are crystal clear. interest rates on middle-class expenses like home mortgages, and student loans shoot up. housing markets, automobile markets and others decline, many are laid off. and then others are laid off in a cyclical cycle. as most cycles are. the dollar will lose its value, making everyday purchases more expensive and the federal government faces terrible choices about who to pay, seniors, veterans, military, creditors. to risk these consequences would be a terrible mistake. so in conclusion, madam president, i come here with a simple plea. not to our tea party activists activists -- activist colleagues but to mainstream conservative republican friends. please help us avoid the default crash. please help us avoid an economic

apocalypse. we're ready to talk. we're ready to negotiate on anything you want but first open up the government and pay our bills. then we can sit down and debate our differences. the future of our financial system, the future of millions of americans is at stake. you don't play around with that, you don't hold that hostage, so to my mainstream conservative republican colleagues, please do the right thing. let us pay our bills and take the threat of a severe economic collapse off the table now. i yield the floor. ms. mikulski: madam president? the presiding officer: the senator from maryland. ms. mikulski: madam president, i rise to speak as the chair of the senate appropriations committee who really would like to be able to reopen government and for our committee to get

back to regular order to be able to move our appropriations bills, to be able to debate them on the floor, amend them on the floor, and go to the conference to resolve either fiscal or other issues we might have with the house. but we can't do it because we are in lockdown politics. now, one of the things -- there's many things about where we find ourselves that are very frustrating to me. and one of the main ones is the fact that the tea party republicans are just out there saying things that simply are not accurate. tea party republicans say that president obama won't negotiate. that's not true. tea party republicans are saying senate -- democrats in the senate won't negotiate. that's not true. tea party republicans say that

the senate has not moved appropriations bills. the proamtions committee has. that's not true. -- the appropriations committee has. that's not true. tea party republicans say the house doesn't have the votes to reopen the government. that's not true. and tea party republicans say the debt limit is not a big deal. that's not true. so let me elaborate on these point by point. tea party republicans say president obama won't negotiate. the president has negotiated time and time and time and time again. he had a framework for a grand bargain in his 2014 budget. read it. let the print speak for itself. he had $1.8 trillion of deficit reduction over ten years, including $400 billion in health care savings, $200 billion savings from mandatory programs, $200 billion of

further discretionary cuts, strategic funding in discretionary spending, and yes, we even change the cost of living calculation for social security. but the republicans couldn't take yes for an answer. here was obama, here was his budget, here's what he was offering, to reduce debt, to take on mandatory spending, to take on discretionary spending. they couldn't take yes for an answer. it included things in there i didn't agree -- that i didn't agree with buts it was an offer to be discussed. since he became president, the deficit has gone down by 50% from $1.4 trillion in 2009 to an estimated $700 billion in 2013. high, yes, but cut in half. now, let's go to this president who they say won't negotiate. he negotiated in 2012, in

december on a fiscal cliff deal. wanted a two-year delay in sequester but he got two months. wanted tax cuts for the wealthy to be eliminated above $250,000, agreed to an estate tax exemption, he agreed with -- he wanted a $3.5 million exemption, the republicans wanted $5 million, he said okay. the 2% social security payroll tax was ended without offsetting stimulus provisions. he gave -- he gave and we supported him. now, let's say he won't negotiate. speaker boehner says we just want to have a conversation. well, he just wants to have a conversation. that's what the president did. what were those golf summits at andrews air force base? i thought that was going to be kumbayah.

the president has had private one-on-one meetings and nothing has come of it. then did he a larger charm offensive. he had din were republicans both at the white house and at different restaurants around town. nobody seemed to be able to take yes for an answer. this is a president who has invited people at the white house, invited leadership to play golf with him, to build relationships. he's had dinner there, but instead of having lunch with the president they want to have his lunch. over and over again. so the president has expressed a willingness continually to negotiate. and where are we now, we need to reopen the government, the house needs to pass the senate clean short-term c.r., raise the -- and raise the debt limit. once it's open for business, we can talk about other matters. now let's go to tea party republicans saying democrats

won't negotiate. senate democrats have tried to negotiate on the budget since we passed it on march 23, 2013. we were here for a marathon session led by senator murray, vote after vote, amendment after amendment and we passed a budget resolution. we passed a budget resolution. now, the rules of engagement and the rules for dispute resolution in the united states congress is you take what one body passes like the senate and you meet with the house in a conference. senator murray was ready to go. she asked permission, which you have to do under the rules of the senate, to go to have her budget conference, to hammer out the budget with paul ryan and other house members.

19 times since march 23 senator murray has stood on this police officer and asked for the ability to go negotiate with the house. 19 times she was blocked by six tea party republicans. 19 times using the rules to protect the voice of the minority -- which i understand -- they used not only their voice but what was used to protect them, to prohibit the senate from going meet with their house counterparts. so the senate -- once the senate democrats wanted to go negotiate. there's paul ryan, there's patty murray, let's have a budget conference and hammer it out. the democrats have been ready to negotiate on a budget since march 23, 2013.

what do you mean, let's just have a conversation? we've been having -- trying to have that conversation since march. who stopped us? harry reid didn't stop patty murray. chuck schumer didn't stop the budget committee. barbara mikulski is not stopping it. six tea party republicans have stopped the ability of the united states senate to go to the house to negotiate a budget. free the budget committee. free the budget committee. why is that so important? because they not only come up with an overall budget in discretionary spending, mandatory spending, and revenues, but they put a cap on we appropriators. one of the things that comes out of a budget agreement is they set the total number, the total amount of money that the

appropriations committee can spend on discretionary spending. to the shock of everybody, there is actually a cap on discretionary spending established by the budget committee. that's been the rule of the budget act going back since the 1970's. i would accept the cap that would be agreed upon on a duely -- duly constituted process established by the rules of the house and the senate, which is you pass a budget, you meet in conference, you come back, you give the appropriators what they call the 30 2us 2-a, the total -- 302-a, it says what revenues should be and mandatory spending. so when you hear democrats won't negotiate, the democrats have negotiated. now, going into this situation where we knew that the fiscal

year expires october 1, the senate put forth a bill, it came out of the appropriations committee, it was really, as the chair, my suggestion, that we would have a short-term funding resolution so we could deal with issues like debt limit, canceling sequester for two years, and what our funding should be to -- the cap should be for 2014. short term, new money, but a goal of getting us to canceling the sequester, following that the budget committee would set the cap on us, et cetera. in order to get there, i was willing to compromise. i didn't want to, i felt it was too harsh, too rough on important discretionary spending, but you know what, sometimes you got to negotiate and you got to compromise. so i was willing to compromise

in order to get to negotiation. what was the compromise? the house has a level of $986 billion. it follows fiscal 2013 at the fiscal level, meaning reduced by over $100 billion. i felt the 986 was too low. the senate bill was a trillion 58, so that's over a $70 billion difference. but you know what, that's what a conference is. that's what negotiation is. so in order to get us across the dome into negotiation, i was willing to compromise, particularly on very important domestic spending. the liberals who want head start, who want to fund n.i.h., well, maybe we're not liberals, maybe we're just americans and i believe friends

on the other side of the aisle, we were ready to go. in my mind as an appropriator, i've already compromised, just to get us into the room. but they won't even take up that bill. they won't take up the bill that speaker boehner said he would pass if we agreed to the $986 billion, their number, to get us into the room to talk. so if you tell the senate if you agree with us on this, just to get a short-term negotiation going, we'll pass it and then you don't, why should we believe that there will be any difference? but i want you to know as the chairman of the appropriations committee, i am ready to negotiate. i am ready to compromise. i've reached out to my house counterpart, the chair of the

appropriations. we have a marvelous, civil, candid relationship. we're ready to go to work. we differ on money. there's no doubt, the chairman of the thousands appropriations committee, congressman hal rogers, a wonderful gentleman but i will tell you he is a rock-ribbed no-nonsense fiscal conservative. but that's okay by senator barb because you know what? that's what compromise is. that's doing what colin powell asked us to do. let's talk things over. let's find that sensible center. let's make sure we run the united states government in a smart, frugal, effective way. that's what it would take, and, you know what? we're ready to do it. but we need -- i need speaker boehner to pass the short-term c.r. so we can even get into the

room to do this. so when you say, senate democrats won't negotiate or won't compromise, it's not true. also, i heard the junior senator from kentucky say that the senate hasn't approved appropriations bills. the appropriations committee, despite being hamstrung by not having a budget, reported 11 appropriations bills. eight of them were supported by republicans. by august 1 our appropriations committee had marked up every single bill except one -- interior. we had marked it up with bipartisan support. eight of them had bipartisan support. three did not. they were h.h.s., financial services, and leg branch. why didn't we get that? because the labor h.h.s. and financial services play a role in funding obamacare.

there we go again. don't do anything that would fund obamacare. there we go again. madam president, i'm so fed up with those riders, those poiso poison-pen riders. you know, we done that to them here. we chose not to. we chose not to o i would like to see the comprehensive immigration bill passed. i didn't put any riders on the appropriations bills coming out of the senate. i would have liked to have seen a farm bill that has been worked on so hard by senator stabenow, the gentlelady from michigan, and senator roberts, the gentleman from kansas. thathey've worked wonderfully oa bipartisan farm bill. it was something really to be proud of in the senate. i would have liked to have athatched to the appropriation -- attached that to the appropriations, but we decided no riders, nothing cute, nothing clever, no earmarks, nothing

like that, straightforward money bills ready to go to conference. we couldn't get it. but they are passed -- they are passed in the appropriations committee. we are waiting to get to work. so i'm going to conclude by saying this: the republican -- the tea party republicans say they don't have the votes in the house to reopen government. give it a chance. put the vote to the floor. if we win, government is reopened. if we lose, at least we offered a suggestion and back toed to -d back to the drawing board. but the solution to reopening the government lies on speaker boehner's desk. he says he wants to have a conversation. we say, pick it up, have the vote that put. that puts the conversation into work on the short-term funding resolution. and we say to our six republican

senators that have blocked the budget committee, let the budget committee go to conference. let senator patty murray and congressman paul ryan meet to resolve these issues. let's follow a regular order. let's get back to the way government and this country should function. madam president, i think i've made my points. i now yield the floor and note the absence of a quorum. the presiding officer: the clerk will call the roll. quorum call:

ms. mikulski: madam president? the presiding officer: the senator from maryland. ms. mikulski: madam president, i ask unanimous consent that the call of the quorum be vacated. the presiding officer: without objection. ms. mikulski: madam president,

i ask that the senate stand in recess until 2:15 p.m. the presiding officer: gored under the previous order, the

funding coming up at 2 p.m. the president is due to make a statement about what is going on in his position on the government shut down. now something else has cropped up and the house rules committee is currently getting ready to meet in just a few minutes and we can show you that room where they are getting ready that isn't started yet but we are going to read bring you the rules committee live when it begins and they are going to be looking at the rules for two things, the super committee that if you've been with us we have reported on a little bit earlier and they are also going to be looking at the the rule for back pay for federal employees. those rules are scheduled to be debated on the house floor this afternoon so that is what is going on in the house. the senate has a couple of judicial nominations they will be working on this afternoon

along with speeches about the government shut down and potential debt ceiling, meeting the debt ceiling on october 17th. that is what is going on on capitol hill today and washington. we want to keep your voice is and take your calls until the rules committee begins its meeting in just a few minutes. patty in alexandre arkansas on the republican line. it is the number eight for the government shut down. what do you think? has it affected you? >> caller: you've got the people that have been the backbone, the grocery store workers, department store workers and all these workers they rarely get minimum wage and they can cut down to 28 hours. how are they supposed to put food on the table or put their kids in school on 28 hours? we are a poverty nation but we are forced to buy something we don't want to buy, not at this

time. why is it being forced down our throat be? i am for boehner and republicans. senator mark pryor better take a look at this. thank you. >> host: jones, a democrat in tennessee. you are on c-span right now. >> caller: hello. glad to be on a pity i tried to get through. but i have a question and i think i got it answered by barbara mikulski -- i can't say her last name -- >> host: you got it. >> caller: speaker boehner was trying to hold the vote. i got it from her but i already had it figured out. it's one of the reasons i came up with because the democrats were saying that he knew that they had the votes to pass it. so therefore, i mean, why put it on the floor? janelle it's going to be passed and we should reopen it. i just feel so sad and about all

of this. i am 65-years-old and i'm on social security. they started nipping into the fact we may be affected. it's to sada i won't say they but the republicans seem like this should be a strategy for them to push the democrats totally aside. i will say democrats but please push the people inside and not let them have, you know, the things they really need for their lives. i don't understand it and i'm not here to call them names but i just don't understand what they are thinking. it's not just going to hurt one set of people but it's going to hurt everybody and the long run. i appreciate you listening. >> host: that was shown in tennessee. this is melissa and oxford michigan on the gop. melissa? >> caller: thank you for

taking my call. i would like to say i do support john boehner. there hasn't been a budget passed since the administration has been in office and i would also like to comment on the affordable health care act. we modeled after countries that already have naturalized health care and i agreed we needed to do something about of the health care in america because they carried the pharmaceutical companies as europe and canada set prices on the pharmaceuticals where we have to pay a lot for the pharmaceuticals to cover the research and everything to bring those drugs to the public. ..

it is just not sustainable. >> host: cathy, is calling on the independent line. cathy is in crandall, georgia. cathy, good afternoon to you. hello. yes, thank you for hearing me. i don't understand why they say this is democracy yet john boehner won't let the majority rule. if he is not going to do his job, he should step down and let somebody in there that will do his job. they made it clear they have enough votes to reopen the government. i'm on social security. my husband is on social security. now they're saying we may not get our next check. if they want to shut down the

government, they should shut down their pay days too. and he keeps talking about balancing the budget. if they would take a cut in play, it would help to balance the budget, instead of they're getting rich taking money from us because we're paying their pay day. their checks. it don't make sense to me. he keeps talking about, well, the budget went up, the budget keeps going up. why didn't they do something about the budget when there was a republican president? they're the ones got us in this mess to begin with. >> host: cathy in crandall, georgia, thank you for calling in. in a minute or so the house rules committee will be meeting. they're starting to gather at the podium. they will be talking about two bills they want to bring to the house floor this afternoon. number one, the super-committee, that we spoke of a little bit earlier. the news story in the hill says

that the house will vote as soon as tuesday on forming a special committee of house and senate members to work out a deal on reopening the government and raising the nation's debt ceiling. the move is an attempt to highlight what the gop sees as a refusal by democrats to compromise in order to end the budget crisis. so they will be working on the rule for debate on this super-committee. 10 members is what is being proposed for membership on this super-committee. and they're also going to be working on a rule to talk about back pay for federal employees. so those two bills, those two rules will be coming up on the senate floor this afternoon along with funding bills for education, impact aid as well as head start. those are some of the bills that the house will be working on the house floor this afternoon. the senate is in recess until 2:15. party lunches, weekly, this happens every week, and then after they, senate democrats,

senate republicans often come out to speak to the press. hopefully we'll be able to bring you that on one of our networks live as well because the president is due to come out at 2:00 p.m. and make a statement and take questions from the press. so that will also be live on one of our networks. it is one of those days again in washington where there's lot of competing events and voices and a couple of tweets that have come in at #c-spanchat. this is james. all of you dems think is okay for our government to live like eggs kings and the rest of the working class to be their peasants. this is troy. republicans, take a hint you lost on health care reform. get over it. and austin says, i'm just trying to go camping in the smokey mountains and finally. here's clarence. the republicans had three years to do something about obamacare. why the insanity now?

allow folks to get insurance. now, george in nashville, we may have to cut you off because the rules committee is about to gavel in. go ahead, george. >> caller: i just had a question. i wanted to ask, why, if the majority rule, and that is what the constitution states and we already elected the officials, why is it now that the president and the senate can not force them to put that on the floor? can he not, i mean they got the majority in terms of what we want. you got the minority running the country. that is not, that is not democracy. how in the world are they getting away with that? i don't know why the president and the senate can't draft a bill and force boehner to at least put it up for a vote. that's democracy. that is who we are. how do you get around that and say they have the right and the power to say we'll not bring it before the government so they can vote on it? the republicans have become communists. they want to take over the government.

that's communism. they blamed obama for it but they're the actual ones showing they want to run the country and don't have, don't have the votes to run it. george, thank you for calling in. we'll go to the rules committee. we have the chairman and ranking member of the committee. let's go to the rules committee now. it is about to start. >> why you guys can't -- [inaudible] we're happy to have you. >> rules committee will come to order and thank you very much for joining us today. father conroy is with us again today. father, thank you for being here with us with some divine guidance. do we need to defer to the

gentleman for a few minutes today or we take your presence as enough? >> we'll just take that then. >> thank you very much. today the rules committee will consider two important pieces of legislation designed to address the current government shutdown and looming debt issue. the first of these bills would appropriate the fund necessary to pay essential federal employees who have continued their work during the shutdown. these essential men and women have earned their paycheck and they deserve a right for us to act on this legislation to insure that they are paid on time. secondly the committee will consider legislation to establish a bicameral, bipartisan working group on deficit reduction and economic growth. this is literally a group that would be given the authority and the responsibility to make sure that we solve the problems, to end the government shutdown, to worry about the budget, to worry

about deficit reduction and to work emimmediately this group would consist of 10 members of the house of representatives and 10 members of the senate. represented by six, our side in the house of representatives, six republicans and six democrats in the senate. and four minority members from each of the other chambers. these members would be appointed no less than one day after the enactment of this legislation and would meet immediately by the subsequent day, to provide recommendations, overall discretionary spending levels for 2014. changes to the discretionary debt limit and reforms to direct spending programs. obviously this committee, this group, would be a group of bipartisan members who are designed to get this country back on track. it is important that we do this because as the current

limitations are taking place we're simply talking past each other rather than talking to each other and rather than working with each other in the best interests of the american people. today, our nation faces many serious challenges that require leaders from both sides of the aisle to work together, but to work together they have to have a process to sit down and look each other and have to deal with the problems. house republicans have continually asked the senate majority leader and the president to negotiate with us and we know that up to now that is not working well. so while major disagreement exists i am here today and confident that a meaningful negotiation can yield the government shutdown and appropriately address the nation's problems and debts. i will tell you my own personal side. i think the american people should take notice to what we are attempting to do.

our president i think is different from his predecessors not in terms of greatness but rather to the degree by which he is willing to sacrifice this nation's greatness for political power, raw political power where he will not negotiate, as well understood by the constitution of a delineation of powers between the house the senate and the president. the ability, i believe, to do good in office by president obama is not really his own making. the promise of his position has been built on the shoulders of prior presidents that have come before him, the vast majority of whom displayed a capacity, a willingness and a desire to negotiate properly with elected members of the people. the house of representatives and

the united states senate. and i believe what we're trying to do here today places a real distinction upon the house of representatives that we are asking the president of the united states and the american people to understand that we believe that real leaders solve problems. they don't go from crisis to crisis and the president of the united states should have to provide leadership and that includes negotiating with people, even someone that you disagree with and that is the mark of a leader and that is why we are here today. before i welcome the two distinguished gentlemen that are here for presentations i would like to yield to the gentlewoman from new york. gentlewoman is recognized. >> i appreciate that. this is certainly different, no question about it. talk about leadership, we have not gotten any at all out of the house of representatives. i talked to a few of you

yesterday. i'm great friend with most of you but i expected better. another super-committee for crying out loud? look what happened to the last one? is there anything in your bill that makes them come to a conclusion? the last one threw up their hand and said we can't do a thing this is leadership and decide you will pay people who are working and deserve pay and by all rights should be having it? how much simpler the whole issue is. the american people keep talking about how they appreciate this and that. what they know is that the government isn't working. that they can't get things done they need to do to the united states government. all we need to do, what we should have done is take the senate clean cr. that little trick we had last rule where you said only majority leader could bring up in session to try to bring that, put that on the floor, i hope we don't see that one again but the pressure is certainly mounting. i'm sure you're aware of that and the whole country knows there are enough votes in the house of representatives with the democrat votes and pub puts

on record -- republicans on record would really welcome the opportunity to vote for the cr and get the government, would give us an opportunity, we hope to try to get back to regular order, which heavens knows we have not had for quite a long time that would solve the problem on both of these issues. my curiosity about the pay piece, as you know the piece that passed her unanimously on retroactive pay is being held by a republican senator so that no action has been made on that. i think it is unconscionable. i think it is, almost criminal our abrogation of our ability to work here. it certainly flies in the face of what we're supposed to be doing, that this 800,000 people who work for the federal government have no idea whether they're going to be paid or not. there is no, everybody says, again, what was most logical thing to be asked when you did the pay thing, pay them later,

if you pay them later, let them work now. i don't know how much longer this charade will go on. i guess you want to wrap the debt limit up in it now. but i really do regret we're here today. we have been given two chances on the floor through the rules committee through the previous question to bring up the senate cr and pass it. it doesn't have to go back to the senate. president can sign it today. we're grown-ups here. most of us have served in other legislatures and we know what we're doing. this is, word defies description in my mind. none of you i don't think could be able to explain to the people back home what in the world it is you're doing here but blaming it all on the president of the united states doesn't seem to be working very well. let's get people back to work. let's get the government going. i know that, what the world thinks about us is not always the first thing that comes up in this house but world press is

insinuating this is a horrible display again of the decay of the american society, american government. let's put a stop these charades. when we go to the floor with the rule, put the cr on the floor. we don't need to do another thing but that. i really, can't imagine, that we're going to put another super-committee up there. which as i read the bill is drafted pretty quickly i suppose. there is no end point to this commission. it could just meet in perpetuity, coming up with no solution, the last thing we need to tell the american people after what they have seen before is that solution. and i yield back the balance of my time. thank you,. >> gentle women yields back time. i appreciate the gentlewoman's discussion for some bit of clarity. but i'm not in the other body but i believe with that the gentle women characterized is correct, there is a republican senator, gentleman from texas, john cornyn who is holding up

the bill which i would say, i understand because what he is attempting to do is amend the bill to add all the other piece parts of the bills that the senate majority leader is holding up, getting people back to work and that he would wrap it into one package and make those votes occur which the senate is being held from. the bill that the gentlewoman is in reference to is what happens we resolve the matter which means it would be after there is an agreement. so it is not like that that is holding up anything. in fact what is senator cornyn is trying to do is to get people back to work and have the senate vote on it as opposed to being obstructionist and not having them vote to get the nih and other bills that we have pass, get those people back to work, essential or not, they are part of our government. they give people services and i think we need them back on the

job. appreciate the gentle women's comments. we want to welcome two distinguished gentlemen today from the appropriations committee. here to talk about hjr ez, federal worker pay fairness act. we welcome the chairman of subcommittee on financial services and ranking member. both of you as always would be considered not just expert witnesses but men who represent your committee, the thought processes, not only the gentleman, mr. serrano, but also the gentleman from florida, my dear friend. as always anything you have in writing will be entered into the record without objection. the gentleman from florida, will please make sure, i can't tell if you got your microphone is on but make sure your microphone is on. the gentleman is recognized. >> thank you, mr. chairman. chairman sessions, ranking member slaughter and esteemed members of the rules committee, i'm here to present hj rez, 89. this legislation fulfills very

important responds possibility as members of congress. providing pay for federal employees who have been working throughout the government shutdown. i'm here today to ask for appropriate rule on this legislation to allow for prompt consideration on the house floor. briefly summarize the bill before you it insures the personnel who have been working for the federal government throughout this shutdown are compensated for their time. over the past eight days these dedicated men and women have put in countless hours of work in service for this nation. just last week we saw the capitol police run into harm's way in the line of duty. this bill will ensure they take home a paycheck. this bill will also take care of all the federal employees who are working during this shutdown to insure the safety and well-being, to provide critical services for our people, to protect businesses from suffering unduly and to lend a helping hand to some of the most vulnerable citizens. just like everyone else, they

have mortgages to pay, they have car payments they have got utility bills, they have got mouths to feed. for their work over the past week, for the work they will continue to do until this shutdown end, these men and women deserve to be paid on time. it has been the goal of the appropriations committee to provide for the timely continued pay for our federal workforce through regular appropriations bills enact the before the end of the fiscal year and i hope we never have to come to this point again. i think i believe that most parties can agree that this bill is a step that must be taken just as we united this weekend to authorize retroactive pay for the furloughed employees on a unanimous basis. i thank the gentlemen and women of this committee for their consideration of this important bill and i strongly urge its adoption on the house floor today. thank you. >> thank you very much for being here today and your insistence to get this bill quickly done i

hope was met with our resolve to meet today. i also want to welcome your dear colleague and my dear friend the gentleman from new york, the gentleman mr. serrano, is recognized. >> thank you, mr. chairman. while no one could argue against paying our essential employees i wish that we were here to consider a bill that would reopen the entire government. this bill would pay all essential federal employees across the government as they would normally be paid irrespective of the shutdown. while this bill will provide some certainty for our federal employees there is much easier and better method of complying this goal. this committee should be providing right now a rule for consideration of the clean senate continuing resolution which would reopen our federal government immediately. even if the house passes the bill being considered here today, the shutdown is still causing many problems for americans that depend upon federal agencies for assistance

and protection. within the subcommittee that i am a ranking member of financial services and general government subcommittee the shutdown has required the small business administration, for instance, to furlough almost 2/3 of its workforce. the agency had to shutter almost all of its loan programs for our nation's small businesses including loan programs for veterans, women-owned small businesses and small businesses located in underserved areas. within the federal judiciary the federal government has current enough funding to continue operations for a couple of weeks, however, once that time is up, they will be unable to fulfill their constitutional duty to uphold the sixth amendment right of criminal defendants. consumer products safety commission, listen to this one, has been cut from 540 employees, to 22, making it difficult for the agency to perform its duty of fully reviewing thousands of different kinds of products.

this will clearly increase the risks to the public. the irs has been forced to furlough most of their workforce, preventing the agency providing taxpayer assistance to those who have questions, to examine questionable tax returns or even to accept paper tax filings. the irs brings in the vast 345 majority of our nation's revenue and the republican shutdown is harming our ability to pay our bills. all of these agencies need and deserve a continuing resolution so they can perform the many functions of government that remain essential to american consumers, investors, taxpayers, and small businesses. a clean cr would do just that and i know that, this is no time to, to be funny but i think if we were to keep taking one bill at a time and maybe 2025 before we open the full government when in fact we could do it in one day and then sit down and talk about the rest of the issues.

so i think for the time, mr. chairman. >> mr. serrano, thank you very much, not only for your clear testimony but also appearing with the gentleman, mr. crenshaw. i'm delighted -- >> my friend. >> he is a very dear friend and a colleague and a good man and i appreciate you both being here. i understand the issue and i appreciate you both being here. thank you very much. i defer to the gentlewoman from north carolina. the gentlewoman is recognized. >> thank you, mr. chairman. i want to thank both of our colleagues here today. i have no questions but i appreciate their work and their effort on this. i yield back. >> gentle women yields back the time. gentlewoman from, new york, that's okay. the gentlewoman has no questions. yields back the time. the gentleman from utah. >> i have question for you both later on. >> gentleman yields back his time. gentleman from massachusetts is recognized. >> i don't know what to say.

i have no questions. >> gentleman yields back his time. gentleman yields back his time. gentleman, chairman from oklahoma is recognized. >> i say always great to be my fellow appropriators up here. always have a great deal of knowledge and good sense. short and to the point. i will follow the example and yield back. >> gentleman yields back his time. the gentleman from florida is recognized. >> chairman, i'm attempted to invoke my -- [inaudible] >> gentleman seeks to yield back his time. gentleman yields back. gentleman from georgia is recognized. the gentleman has no questions. gentleman from colorado. no questions. gentleman from florida? >> no questions. >> gentleman from, orlando, florida? gent nan from texas, dr. burgess. does not seek time. >> thank you very much for being here. i appreciate you taking time not only to represent your ideas that you have but also wish you the very best for a beautiful

day. father conroy is probably here for mrs. slaughter and myself. you may have thought you had extra help. i hope you will leave with that. i want to thank you. you're both excused. >> i do have one question, mr. chairman. >> the gentleman is recognized. >> is the shutdown responsible for the fact that this room is so cold? >> room is a perfect temperature to the chairman. if you wish to, you would wish to seek a change in that, you may petition me at anytime. >> notwithstanding my --, notwithstanding my 63 years in new york, i was born on a tropical island. >> the gentleman sees me every morning and knows how to complain. i would consider that a very favorable comment. when you're from dallas, texas, you kind of like air-conditioning. thank you very much. >> thank you very much, this now ends the portion of the hearing, hj recent, 89. i call up h-3323. economic working group act of

2013 and would recognize the gentleman from maryland, my dear friend, ranking member of the budget committee and amde lighted that that you are here. as always, mr. van holland, when you appear before us we are delightning you have in writing. without objection that will be entered into the record and the gentleman is recognized. >> thank you, mr. chairman. it is good to be here and i just want to commend the committee on the piece of legislation you just discussed which is to make sure that people who are working like the capitol police get paid on time. i also want to commend the house on the unanimous vote on saturday to make sure that federal employees should not be penalized for actions that are beyond their control. i thought that was the right thing to do. i do think people are very puzzled, mr. chairman, about the fact that having said that we're going to make sure that we pay all the federal employees on time, at all, and pay federal

employees at all federal agencies we wouldn't act today to make sure they go to work at all federal agencies. i think the american people are a little puzzled about the fact that we're going to do the right thing and make sure they all get compensated for this period of time but they're puzzled why we wouldn't have them all go back to work today and that of course is within our power to do if we were simply to have a vote on the bill that came from the senate that would immediately open the entire government without preconditions. and again i would urge the body to do that the speaker has it in his power. as you know, mr. chairman, this committee actually took away a right that belongs to every member, democrat, or republican, when we're in the situation we are now where there is disagreement between the house and the senate. under the standing house rules, under the standing house rules, any member of this congress has the right to call up the senate

bill. and on october 1st this committee took away that right from every member and gave it exclusively to the republican leader, who has used it to keep government shutdown by refusing to bring up that bill. now, mr. chairman, let me talk for a second about the other bill that's before us and just remind every member here and you have been at a lot of these hearings, that the democrats in the house and the senate as well as the president of the united states, have been trying to have a negotiation on the budget since the beginning of this year. in this house we pass ad budget in march. i see some of my friends from the budget committee here. they know that. in march the united states senate also passed a budget. the regular order which the speaker called for, says that the house and the senate should appoint budget negotiators to work out the differences between those budgets. the speaker has refused to

appoint budget negotiators. that's a fact. i introduced a resolution in april, calling upon the speaker to appoint house budget negotiators. he refused to do it. we tried three times in the house to get a vote to appoint negotiators to go negotiate with the senate on the budget. in the united states senate, on 18 occasions, maybe even 19 now, the senate majority leader and the chairman of the house -- senate budget committee, patty murray, have tried to get consent to appoint budget negotiators. that's a fact. they were blocked on all 18 occasions by republican senators. senator mccain be, said it was quote, insane, unquote for senate republicans to be blocking budget negotiators since after all republicans had been calling for years on the senate to pass a budget.

they passed legislation saying no budget, no pay. then they went on to block the appointment of negotiators in both the house and senate, not really telling the american people when they said no budget, no pay, they didn't mean that we should have a federal budget. apparently just a house budget and a separate senate budget would do. so right now we don't have a federal budget and everybody's still getting paid and the record is very clear and indispute ab, that the speaker of the house blocked the appointment ever budget negotiators and in the senate, senate republicans blocked the appointment of budget negotiators. so the clock ticks. we went past the statutory april 15th deadline for a conference committee to report. obviously a conference committee can't report if you don't appoint budget negotiators to the conference committee. so the clock ticked and we got up against the wall on a government shutdown and on the debt ceiling to pay our country's bills on time.

so, what happened first on the continuing resolution? there was a negotiation. the speaker of the house on national television on sunday told the public that he had a negotiation with the senate democratic leader harry reid. he picked up the phone, harry reid did. they had a discussion and they had a negotiated agreement. what was the agreement? the agreement was that the democrats would accept the lower sequester level of funding for the government for a short period of time in exchange for the speaker agreeing not to add extraneous, unrelated provisions to keeping the government open. they had a negotiation. they had an agreement. that's what the speaker said on national television. and then he said, well, he couldn't keep his agreement because he had a faction within the house republican caucus that demanded that in order to keep the federal government open we

would have to start to shut down the affordable care act. that's what he said. so he walked away from a negotiated agreement. which brings us to where we are now and of course the irony is here in the house we do have the votes to immediately open the entire government if the speaker would only put it to a vote. and if he has any doubt bit, there is a simple way to find out, hold a vote. now, after saying you don't want to negotiate on the budget for a month after month after month, you come up with this provision to create some other kind of committee. you call it a super-committee, call it whatever you want. i would point out that the last super-committee didn't turn out very well after three months. it produced nothing unfortunately. and now here when we're already in a government shutdown, when we're about seven days from defaulting on our debt

obligations, all of a sudden let's create another committee. not the budget committee which is suppose to under regular order negotiate things, but another committee. because you didn't want to have the negotiation in normal course and look the president is very clear. we want to negotiate but we're not going to negotiate away the full, faith and credit of the united states. the full, faith and credit of the united states i would hope we all agree is not negativable. we don't think keeping the government open is something that is negotiable. and think about it this way. i want to ask my colleagues on both side of the aisle, just think about this. what if the president of the united states said this, what if he said i'm going to veto a debt ceiling bill. i will veto a bill to pay the country's bills on time, unless you house republicans agree to my budget, to the president's budget? or if the president said i'm going to veto the debt ceiling bill and i'm going to refuse to

pay our bills on time unless house republicans adopt the senate budget. you would say that was absolutely outrageous. you would say that was an abuse of power and process. and you would be right but that is exactly what house republicans are doing now. they're threatening to not pay our bills on time, bills that have been incurred by this congress, republicans and democrats alike. you're threatening to not pay our bills on time unless you get to reduce the deficit the way you want to do it, or, seek other policy changes like changing the affordable care act, that's your position. our position is, yeah, we want to negotiate. as i said, you have a house budget and there's a senate budget. we negotiate between the two budgets. that is the conversation we should have. the house budget reduces the deficit a certain way.

we disagree with lots of things in the house republican budget. the senate democratic budget reduces the deficit in a different way. it take as balanced approach to reducing the deficit, meaning a combination of targeted cuts but also cuts to tax expenditures, cuts to certain tax breaks in order to help reduce the deficit in a balanced way. it replaces the sequester, which the cbo tells us will cost us 800,000 jobs this time next year. it has a jobs plan to invest in our infrastructure and education in science and research. so the senate has a budget and the president has a budget. and house republicans have a budget. we should negotiate those two budgets. that is the conversation, but the conversation you're trying to turn it into is l is hey, in exchange for republicans agreeing to do what every member should do, which is pay our bills on time, mr. president, you have to give us a budget or

big parts of our budget. do it our way in exchange for us to do the right thing. when it comes to the government shutdown, you know, we'll only keep the government open if you agree to our way on the affordable care act. so that is not a negotiation. that is taking hostages and demanding that you get your budget your way or else you're not going to release those hostages and we all know how dangerous it is to hold the full faith and credit of the united states hostage. mr. chairman, let me make the last point. even in this process of setting up a committee, it's a fake negotiation. i couldn't believe my eyes when i read this thing. so, what it says is, bicameral working group on deficit reduction and economic growth. and then it gives the working group its charter. it tells you what you can look at.

okay, we're supposed to look at overall discretionary spending. well, we've been trying to do that. that is the whole issue about trying to replace the see questions term we want to replace the sequester. we have had numerous proposals to do it. tried to get a vote eight times in the house on the plans to replace the sequester. never a chance. never an up-or-down vote. it says changes in the statutory limit on the public debt. again, as i said, that is something that should not be negotiable this terms of were we pay our bills on time. then it says, reforms in direct spending programs and as we've said on the budget committee we should look at direct spending programs. our proposal to replace the sequester gets rid of excessive agriculture subsidies. there are other things we should look at but that's it. guess what is missing from the purpose? under this charter for this sham negotiation we, this committee could not even discuss closing a tax loophole for the purpose of

reducing the deficit. imagine that! deficit reduction but you can't talk about closing a tax loophole to help reduce the deficit. that is a farce by any definition, mr. chairman and i think the members of this committee know that. there are two sides to the equation when it comes to the budget and deficit reduction. that has been the debate for years and years now. we've argued that we should reduce the long-term deficit through a combination of targeted and smart cuts, and, by cutting special interest tax breaks. tax breaks for very high-income individual. we say that you know, they should get the same level of deductions as middle income taxpayers. we warrant to close special interest tax breaks for hedge fund owners. but the way you set this up, you

can't do that as part of a achieving deficit reduction. it's not listed among the things that this committee can consider. and mr. chairman, that is a sham as i said by any common sense definition. so look, when our republican colleagues want to stop holding the full faith and credit of the united states government hostage and when they want to stop holding the operation of the federal government hostage we would love to do what we've been trying to do since march, which is have a budget negotiation between our two budgets. but that negotiation, on the budgets when, it takes place, can't be done in a way that you, you eliminate one half of the deficit reduction argument. so, mr. chairman, i wished that maybe our colleagues had put something that would actually provide a path forward. this is not it. and the path forward is pretty clear which is to allow democracy to work its will.

hold a vote today in the house of representatives and the lights could go on in the federal government tonight. the president's waiting for that bill to sign. thank you. >> i appreciate the gentleman not only appearing today but his thoughtful comments. the rest of the story as sometimes we've heard, i don't intend to tell today but i would say that i do recognize that the differences between our parties are probably a trillion dollars in spending and a trillion dollars in taxes. that i do get. the difference between the democrat budget in senate that democrat alternative in the house and where republicans are is a wide gulf. what i think we're attempting to accomplish here not only, myself as the original cosponsor of this bill, by the way, i know the gentleman would disagree with my bill and that's okay, is the speaker, the majority

leader, and i, are attempting to work through a process in another way, and that is, to empower the members. by the way i'm not nancy pelosi, the democrat leader, and i haven't even spoken with her but you would be the one of the first persons i would put immediately on this conference and i would trust your ability to not only work in a collegial manner but in a way that represented thoughtful ideas about how to resolve the differences as opposed to perhaps more public figures like senate majority leader, president of the united states and speaker of the house. i think what we're trying to do is to empower people to get something done as opposed to putting them into a process that would not work. i would quite honestly, i would trust you in that environment. so we're trying not to wrap your hands up. we're trying to give you a mission statement. but with that said, the gentleman is correct.

i am not in favor of one of your pet projects to tax gasoline. gasoline at the pump. you and i both know we disagree with this as a strong supporter, notwithstanding i know you are too but of people who have children that are disabled and they have bigger vehicles and one of the things that i'm very sensitive about is, family who is are able to afford gasoline already twice as expensive under president obama as it was when, before he took office. and many of these families are having problems. on the other side you mentioned taxes as it relates to perhaps upper income people. back home there are people who believe, if they are paying, their working hard and because they have a job and not everybody's got a job, but if they are paying money as a high-income earner for others who have no participation in the process, that they should not be

held back from how much they can deduct on a, on a pretax basis and there are lot of people who are trying to take care of their families also who are struggling to pay the bills of taxes and their family. so what republicans are not interested in in particular, perhaps me, is not increasing taxes on people who are paying the taxes. who are paying for others who through a misfortune not always their own, but who are helping pay for people to be able to have things and that they would like the same right to take care of their families. so, we're opposed to tax increases. that is why it is not in there. so if he start with a definition because i wrote the bill, you're right, we disagree. what i don't think would happen is, i don't think that you would be met in this committee if you were chosen to be one of the people that you would not have an opportunity to effectively

work with your colleagues and that's what i think we're trying to do. so i appreciate the gentleman -- >> mr. chairman if i could respond. >> i was speaking about the gentleman. he certainly would be allowed to do that and my dear friend. >> thank you, yes, sir. it has been great working with you. >> i hope we're not through yet. >> number one, i have not called for a increase in the gas tax. let's be clear about that. >> no, sir. >> what i have said, i think we should get rid of the tax breaks for the top four integrated oil companies, and all the testimony before this congress indicates that is. adam: because you have a pretty competitive market in that area. they would not raise prices at pump, would reduce profits which are huge. if you don't, if you raised your price at the pump and smaller guys are not, then obviously you're going to get less customers, so this is a move to

remove the oil subsidy which was a acted in the to begin with. number two, when i talk about higher income people being able to take more, what i talk about share responsibility, what i'm talking about to folks saying over making over a million dollars a year you shouldn't be able to get you shouldn't be able to get more in tax deduction than someone in the middle income area? say for example, 28% tax break, writeoff for the reductions, instead of a 39% or 37% tax rate? so that, the millionaire doesn't get excessive deductions in comparison to middle income folks. when we talk about reducing the budget deficit we only believe in a way that doesn't great violent to important investments and commitments made to seniors

and medicare and other important areas without having shared responsibility approach. to make additional cuts. . . >> whose charter excludes the whole question of trying to have some loophole closures in order to reduce the deficit. >> i appreciate the gentleman, in fact, closing loopholes as you're suggesting is a tax

increase, and i am absolutely opposed to further tax increases. i know, i'm well aware, i've been up here a few years. i know who wants tax increases, who doesn't. also know somebody's interested -- they're called republicans -- in taking $700 billion out of obamacare that went for funding the program back to seniors. so we, we offer each other a lot of solace about the position we're in. i hope that when this passes, that the senate will look at it as an opportunity, and it would be my expectation that you would be one of the bright souls who would be given this authority and responsibility, and i thank the gentleman for being here. i yield to the gentlewoman from north carolina. >> thank you, mr. chairman. i thank the gentleman from maryland, but i have no questions. >> gentlewoman yields back time. gentlewoman from new york. >> mr. van hollen, i'm pretty speechless, but thank you so much for coming. i think your presentation was cogent, it hit all the points

that we need to hit. but as we know, we're all crying in the wilderness here, and nothing that we're doing here today is going to move the well being and economic interest of this country an inch. i understand we ain't going to get another mini cr, so on with the dance. thank you. >> gentlewoman yields back. gentleman from utah -- gentleman yields back his time. gentleman from massachusetts is recognized. >> mr. chairman, this is a question of process. i've complained that a number of bills that have been brought before this committee have never been heard by the committees of jurisdiction. and this bill, the original jurisdiction is the rules committee. are we going to have an original jurisdiction hearing, or is this hearing on the rule, basically, a substitute for that? >> thank you very much. this is the committee for jurisdiction, and that is what we are doing right now. >> right. we're not having a separate

hearing -- >> i appreciate the gentleman. i appreciate the gentleman. and, in fact, there's a lot of truth to what the gentleman said, and that is what i chose to do. i will tell you how this happened. this happened because there was a report out of the white house yesterday that senior advisers to the president have said that the president would sooner have the united states default tan him negotiate. than him negotiate. and that was a position, that was absolutely right out of the white house. >> i could assure you, that's not the president -- >> i'm simply telling you the report, and we're trying to work around this. the speaker of the house and i, the majority leader, the whip -- it is outrageous, and that's why we're here today. gentleman's recognized. >> i thank the chairman. today's october 8th, am i direct? >> i believe that's correct. >> october 17th, we're going to default on our financial obligations if we don't do something. this is day nine of the government, republican government shutdown, and this is what we're bringing to the

floor? as i'm reading this, there's nothing many this thing that, i mean, you were talking about negotiations with the president. nothing in here that even mentions the president. >> it does not. in fact, the gentleman is correct. >> and there's nothing in here that says if you pass this, the government reopens. am i correct about that? this is not -- passing this does not reopen the government. >> in fact, it's my hope that the american people would see firsthand in negotiations on tv that -- >> [inaudible] >> and the people that are there for the best interests of the american people and take that advantage. >> so the answer on that is, no. and there's nothing here that deals with the issue of our debt, the debt ceiling which comes on october 17th. and, you know, i mean, i, there were no instructions or just basic guidance. i think the last thing we need at this moment is yet another committee. mr. van hollen is the ranking

democrat on the budget committee. the budget committee, led by mr. ryan -- i disagree with him profoundly on a whole bunch of issues, money the less, went through the process of coming up with a budget. i hi it's a very flawed budget. senator murray over in the senate did the same thing. and so, you know, we -- everyone's talking about regular order here. you have a house budget and a senate budget. it would seem to me that you already had the committees exist to resolve their differences. and if you don't think they can resolve their differences, appoint the conferees so they can at least try, you know? if they, you know, days go by and they can't make any headway, then you can talk about something else. but, i mean, for six months we've been trying to get a conference going on. but this, this doesn't do anything. in this doesn't can stop the government shutdown, this doesn't deal with the issue of the debt, the debt ceiling.

it's, i'll call in the supercommittee ii, the wrath of cruz. i don't know what else to call it. i mean, it's just, it's likest nothing. it's like it's nothing. at a time when we need to be doing something to reopen the government and to deal with this looming threat of this, of defaulting on our, the good faith and credit of the united states. i mean, i just, i'm just a little bit stunned that at this moment it doesn't even tell you how long this committee's supposed to meet, you know? or, you know, or it doesn't can empower the committee with anything other than, you know, getting together and talking. i just, you know, even for you guys i expected something a little bit more thoughtful at this late stage, and i'm just, i mean, we're running out of time. we're running out of time here. and, you know, i -- it is what it is, and we'll bring it to the

floor and go through this charade and, again, waste some more time. but this is not what we should be doing. we should be -- there's a simple answer. you know, pass, pass the clean cr at your levels. you won on that. you got your numbers, you won, you know? do that, deal with the debt ceiling and then sit down, get the budget committees of both the house and senate to get together and work out their differences so we can deal with our long-term spending and deficit issues. and actually respect regular order which is something that you all say you want to do. so that would be my suggestion, and i thank the chairman for yielding. >> i thank the gentleman. gentleman from oklahoma, chairman cole, is recognized. >> thank you, mr. chairman. i have no questions for my good friend from the budget committee, and i'll make one observation. i don't wish that you were on this committee, you're my friend. [laughter] i would never put my friend on this committee. but i know if that opportunity presented itself to you, i know that you'd take it up seriously

and responsibly and conduct yourself as a credit to the institution. >> thank you. >> with that, yield back. >> thank you. >> you say you have a lot of friends up here, mr. van hollen. i'm not the only one that's your dear friend that's here. the gentleman from florida's recognized. >> mr. chairman? >> yes, sir. >> every one of us in this room were elected to do exactly what this legislation calls for some working group to do. it may come as no surprise to you that there are those of us that are in congress that were not happy with any committee of congress being divided and whether mr. van hollen or anybody else was on it, i feel my responsibilities to my constituency and to america of equal weight to any member that is a member of any one of these so-called separate committees. now, i awakened this morning and came here, and the first thing that came to me before i came to the capitol early this morning

was a fax from one of my staff from something called buzz feed. and buzz feed was mindful of what you all were getting ready to do before you went to your conference. i had absolutely no idea. i serve on the rules committee as do all of the members that are here, and i had no idea we would be discussing anything like this today. eric cantor, the majority leader, discharging his responsibilities had put out a voting schedule that called for us to vote on other matters. of course, this is the rules committee. you can bring up anything that you want at any given time under the martial law, under the same day. but then i heard you, mr. chairman, just say to mr. mcgovern that this is occurring, meaning this britishment of -- establishment of a bicameral working group because some person, unidentified evidently otherwise

i would hope that you would call that person's name, said that the president would let the nation default. and so, therefore, this is the position that you're taking? because of some anonymous somebody saying something about the president? is that what you're doing here? >> i appreciate the gentleman asking me a question. in fact, the speaker of the house has been engaged in negotiations, went last week, i believe, to the white house, and the president indicated that thank you for coming down here, he's not interested in negotiating. so we're simply reinforced a continued effort that we believe from the white house, so we're trying to work around that. we're trying to work with members. >> all due respect, mr. chairman, just to put an additional question to you and then i will yield to the ranking member for a question, but that's not what i asked you. what you just said was that someone said that the president would allow us to default on our

debt. and your comment was based on that, that's why you are doing what we are doing here. and i ask you, is that a true? is that why you're doing this? and then you responded then by saying that someone went to the white house a week ago, and the president -- and i gather that's the meeting that the president called for and the president said and doubtless it's true, that he was not going to negotiate away our debt ceiling. so what is it? i mean, why are you bringing this useless piece of legislation that obviously you would know is not going anywhere? is it based on some anonymous statement? >> gentleman yield? >> yes, of course. >> i do appreciate the gentleman, and i do understand, i believe, that the gentleman is opposed to this. with that said, we have brought numerous pieces of legislation to the floor in response to not only the cr, but also how we deal with the government

shutdown. and i am well aware that there are things that the gentleman agrees with and some that he has agreed with, with them and been against them. we believe that what we're trying to do is to say to house members and senate members we think that outside of the leadership of both of these organizations and the president, we ought to put our best thinkers -- we didn't try and say who would be on the committee, we simply said it'd be an equal number and that they have a mission, they've got to meet no later than one day after they're appointed, and they've got to be appointed in one day. >> i get that. >> that's what we're trying to say. >> let me yield to ms. slaughter for a moment. >> i appreciate you doing that, because as i heard what the chairman said was that the president stated that he would prefer default. is that correct, what you said? >> no, ma'am. i said that the senior adviser said that the president would sooner default than to engage in negotiation.

>> i don't believe that. >> we can get the quote for you. i had never heard of this other buzz -- >> well, i certainly want to see it. i would think that would be -- [inaudible conversations] the president's not going to do any such thing. >> by way, the speaker of the house -- >> the full faith and credit of the united states so important to him that he will not negotiate over it. >> if the gentlewoman would allow me -- >> speaker of the house yesterday went on the floor and acknowledged exactly the characterization that is more correct by the way the speaker said it when he spoke yesterday publicly on the floor of the house of representatives, and that is what told us that we need to go a different route. and trying to work -- >> we put a lot of characterizations about people that have been totally untrue, and i'd be careful about that. but let me list what i interrupted mr. hastings to say. we understand there's now a new bill that's going to be added to the schedule today on mini crs, on the faa which has had no committee action again. we have not seen this bill, we

know absolutely nothing about it. i'm assuming that you'll have to recess now because i don't think it's here. as far as i know. but i will tell you that we object most strenuously to the way that this government's being run. what you are saying not only is that nearly half the house of representatives not worthy of being in a committee, so that they can have some input on what's being done, but the rules committee -- which is supposed to be the final spot before a piece of legislation goes to the floor, has no idea what's happened. we saw this thing 30 minutes ago. and i want to really ask you, is that what we're going to do today? and are there any more coming? >> yes, ma'am. and thank you very much -- >> there are more coming? >> thank you very much -- >> i'll yield -- >> to the gentlewoman and swreman. we will continue to add legislation up to and including tomorrow, some will be later and that do address the needs of the business, and we don't agree with the way the government's

being run either. i would yield back. >> we've got to open up the united states government. this is such a farce. i can't sit here and -- [inaudible] the truth is all we have to do is open up the government, put the people back to work. this strange dance that we're going through here of legislation is just not worthy of the united states government. and i thank you very much. >> thank you, ms. slaughter. i thank the chairman as well. but now let me give the chairman and the members some new news. as of 11:30 this morning, the white house issued this statement: late this morning the president telephoned speaker john boehner from the oval office and repeated what he told him when they met at the white house last week. the president is willing to negotiate with republicans after the threat of government shutdown and default have been removed. over policies that republicans think would strengthen the

country. the president also repeated his willingness to negotiate on priorities that he has identified including policies that expand economic opportunity, support private sector job creation, enhance the competitiveness of american business and strengthen the affordable care act and continue to reduce the nation's deficit. the president urged the speaker to hold a vote in the house of representatives on the senate-passed measure that would reopen the principal government immediately. citing the senate's intention to pass a clean yearlong extension of the debt limit this year, the president also pressed the speaker to allow a timely up or down vote in the house to raise the debt limit with no ideological strings attached. he noted that only congress has the authority to raise the debt limit, and failure to do so would have grave consequences for middle class families and our american economy as a whole.

that's the latest statement from the president that is in complete refutation of any anonymous statements that any staff person may say, have said and is pretty clear. mr. chairman, i want to come back to you and ask you again another question. can you or speaker boehner, for whom i have great respect, guarantee if this commission or working group as it's called in the proposed legislation were to meet and bring out findings that you and/or the speaker more specifically can guarantee that his tea party members will support those recommendations? >> i thank the gentleman for yielding, and i would like to say and the gentleman, mr. boehner or, does recognize your friendship and support of representing your district and is delighted that you're here on the rules committee with us. and that is an outstanding question. what i would say to the gentleman is that as the

american people hear the debate that takes place between these members who would be there, we're hoping that the american people really engage on this issue and idea that would have great leverage with all of our members, and it would be, i think, beneficial. and as best i can tell you as i look at the gentlewoman from new york, i think the american people do need to see how we're going to do this and become engaged behind common sense ideas, and i appreciate the gentleman for asking. >> thank you, mr. chairman. i have an additional question. and one of them is in reading and rereading the legislation and then asking my staff to review it, it says absolutely nothing about how much this will cost. now, these committees don't just come into existence all of a sudden and don't cost anything, so since you've left that out, i would hope before we report out the rule -- and normally i'm in

agreement with reporting out the rule most immediately, but normally isn't good enough in these times. at least we ought to have some idea about how much it will cost the taxpayers to establish such a commission and to have it render its majority and minority reports. does the chairman have an answer for that question? >> in fact, i do, and i appreciate the gentleman deferring to me. the working group is what this is called. it is, in fact, a working group. it is not a committee, it is a working group, bicameral, bipartisan, men, women -- >> how much does can it cost? >> i appreciate the gentleman. and so we have not gone and calculated that. i would say to the gentleman i appreciate the question, and we think this working group can get done and get the work and would be done -- >> man, you sure do have a strange way of evading questions. >> you know what? if i had an answer, i'd give it to you. >> well, i'm delighted to know that you don't have an answer, and that's what should be in this legislation.

all of the other legislation that's created in committees created the financing of those committees or working groups or whatever you want to call them. but the simple fact is this one does not. and i are offer an -- i will offer an amendment to the rule that will allow that we do at least establish something if nothing more than to say that each member's member representational allowance we can't do it for the senate, and somehow or another we're off the track here altogether. but i don't understand perpetuating legislation and allowing for a working group to be established. and if they don't have good working staff as some of the others have had and they have produced fine products that went absolutely nowhere in this congress -- and i'd range all the way back to good friends of mine that did the concord coalition long before we get to where we are. now, apparently, your staffer wants to have me say something that you need to say, so let me yield to you. >> well, i appreciate the gentleman, but what i wanted to

reply back is if we use as a standard the committee which was for the purpose of trying to cut a deal of long-term debt, we did give them a designation. we gave them a time frame. we told them by and large what to do, what the rules -- >> the supercommittee you're talking about. >> i am. we are not trying to do that at all. we are trying to establish a working group. >> all right. >> they would be able to effectively turn this around. i appreciate this. in fact, we're trying to get a resolution of some ideas to help us work. >> i'll yield to the -- >> i think i may have a solution. if the budget committee that has already been constituted, the staff have already been, you know, they have this -- [inaudible] in place, i'm sure mr. van van hollen would not object to having a conference committee be televised so the american people could have the discussion you want, and then we don't have to worry about any more money.

we don't need to reinvent the wheel. >> right. well, first off, i thank the gentleman very much. but what you've done here in this legislation that you've proposed, as mr. van hollen has wisely pointed out, that you say that the working group's charge is, number one, overall levels of discretionary spending including for the fiscal year ending on september 30, 19 -- 2014. it's more like 19 since it seems like we're going back to previous centuries with all of this stuff. but the simple fact of the matter is something that's revenue neutral, and that's basically what you've done. and i would ask mr. van hollen, do you perceive it the same as i do, this particular language, that how it is your charge would be revenue neutral since it would not include any potential more -- for spending and revenue

increases? >> we, mr. hastings. -- yes, mr. hastings. what this says even though the title says "deficit reduction," it would only allow the group to pursue one kind of deficit reduction. you would not be allowed to both do targeted cuts which we should do and targeted cuts and cuts to tax breaks. again, we talked about big oil company subsidies. you've got, you know, big wall street hedge fund owners who get a much lower tax rate than the ordinary americans. under this legislation the way it's drawn, you couldn't reduce the deficit by one penny by closing some of those tax breaks. >> absolutely. and in this nation when 1% of the people in this country have hijacked the middle class, quite frankly, and that's what i believe my colleagues on the democrat side are trying to do, and that is increase the middle class and widen it so that this

nation can go forward. but this legislation, i predict for you, i don't even imagine that harry reid is going to allow it to even reach the pile at his desk. let me borrow from ezra klein, a favorite of mine. he writes today: fool me with the budget commission once, shame on you. fool me eight times, and i think it's important for the people to know that he lists the partial list of bipartisan budget negotiations we've had since 2010. the simpson-bowles commission which people forget was the legacy of a 2010 debt ceiling increase, the dom niche chi-rivlin commission, the cantor/biden talks, the gang of six talks, the supercommittee, the boehner/obama fiscal cliff

talks and every last one of them went absolutely nowhere, although there are many things and even as late as now, i would support the simpson-bowles commission. and had we done it at that time, it would have made an awful lot of sense. and had we done what the senator from vermont and his people had done with the concord coalition, things in there that i would not have agreed upon but might put us in a better position than we're in in this nation today, and all i would say, and i ask you this, mr. chairman, and this'll be my final question: what happens if and when this commission, if it were a working group, excuse me, if this working group fails and the next cr and debt ceiling increase needs to be passed, what happens then when this one doesn't work? i yield to the gentleman. >> i thank the gentleman for his question x the answer is -- and the answer is, is that i believe what we're trying to do is to come up with an idea to empower members as opposed to the leadership route that we've been

doing where our leaders have worked together, and i think our leaders have been unable to do it. and i appreciate the gentleman not only for his thoughtful questions, but also his answers. but i would say to the gentleman this is another opportunity, and we're going to keep throwing them out just as we have others and hoping that sooner or later -- >> i thank the gentleman. >> i thank the gentleman. >> i borrow all my time back just to say i don't need other members to tell me how to do my job. i don't need the leadership of this congress on either side telling me how to do my job. every one of the 435-plus six or seven of the delegates in this congress have minds that are just as sound and solid as everybody else. all we have to do is go right down the floor right now and put on the floor a clean cr and let the body work its will. i predict that it would pass, and you are all are holding it up, and you ought to be held

responsible by the american people that you continue to a talk about. and i want to say something about the american people. i don't only just represent the people in my constituency, i represent the people that didn't vote that are american people. they are deserving of my consideration, and i don't need no commission to tell me anything and for me to be walking around on the floor trying to ask a handful of people what they're doing on a given day. we ought to do what mr. mcgovern said, let it be public and let everyone see what we're doing. the speaker has even said he wasn't going to participate in any more back room negotiations with anybody, and here we are getting ready to establish something else that's going to be some kind of supercommittee over me and my constituency? cut me some slack. >> this working group is an idea that i would say to you that i'm delighted that everyone has been here. i would ask the gentleman as he hears what i'm getting ready to say that we're now on a series of votes that are going to take place, and i'd like to ask that the gentleman, please, come back

after the floor vote, several votes. i don't know if there's two or three, but ask that you come back and that we plan to add a measure on the faa because this hearing has gone on. we're going to keep adding ideas. as a result, we'll stand in recess until 2:15 to take up the faa and the rest of this. we're now in recess. [inaudible conversations] >> and you've been watching the house rules committee live on c-span2, you heard that they are going to recess for a little while. there are some votes going on on the house floor, so the rules committee members will be

heading down there shortly. when they come back from their recess, you can watch the rest of rules on c-span.org, because the house is in session, the senate's coming back in about a half an hour. the president is holding a news conference. this is his first news conference where he's taking questions from reporters during the government shutdown and his 26th overall news conference since he's been president. that's occurring in about 15 minutes or so, and then on top of that, the senate will be coming back at 2:15, but the party lunches are now occurring, and there could be senate democratic leadership and house and senate republican leadership coming out to speak to the press about what they heard, and you can see there life right off the senate floor, it's called the ohio clock area of the senate. it's right -- the senate floor is just into the right there. and so this is all occurring

today. we'll be bringing as much of it to you live as we can on our three networks, c-span2, c-span2 and c-span3, but then we also have c-span.org so you can see some of the other events. but we want to talk to you right now. we're talking about day eight of the government shutdown. the rules committee was talking about the supercommittee which heavy moved forward with and they'll be voting on in the house whether or not that's necessary. if you feel that that is necessary, to have this supercommittee take part in the budget negotiations. so as everything plays out, we want to make sure that your voices get in here as well. now, we've been receiving a lot of tweets at hashtag c-spanchat. and just want to run through some of those before we get to your phone calls. here is one: i wish i could stand around and do nothing at my job like the house is right now. and here is mason: pete

sessions -- the chair of the rules committee -- his opening statement was attack on barack obama on many levels and contained no discussion of issues to resolve. and cold as huch says republicans are dangling a baby by one hand and veterans in the other and telling democrats to decide who lives. saking my head. vivian says: i'm old. now helen is calling from greens borrow, north carolina, good afternoon, you're on c-span. >> caller: you know, they talk about a democracy. i believe the preamble of the united states says we live in a republic for which it stands, one nation, under god, for liberty and justice for all. i'm a 73-year-old retiree.

i can't even get help from medicare. these democrats, republicans, it's provocative. they all act like a bunch of little kids. i mean, we elected them to do a job. barack obama, he cannot be trusted. he says one thing and he does another. you people in this country need to wake up. thank you. have a good day. bye. >> host: and kay in washington, d.c., you're on c-span, democrats' line. >> caller: yeah. i'm really, truly disgusted, and it's very hard to even have a real conversation. >> host: we're listening, ma'am. please go ahead. okay. we're going to put you on hold, and you've got to turn down the volume on your tv, otherwise you get some feedback. it's a little bit of a delay when you listen through your tv, but once you yet on the phone -- get on the phone, just listen to

the phone. tom from flint, michigan, independent. >> caller: hi. there's a couple of things i'm upset about. i watched an interview a couple days ago where a couple of the rookie senators, congressmen were doing an interview, and they started laughing at each other. they were laughing about it. they were. >> shrugging each other. i just got done watching your show, and afterwards everybody's laughing. it's not funny. i mean, they're getting paid, they're -- i mean, i can't believe it, they're laughing and joking about it. if i, if i know a young man that's super intelligent that we would love working for our government, i would tell him to go to the private sector right now. isn't that sad? >> host: what is it about the laughing that you don't like? >> caller: well, i don't think there's anything funny. of. >> host: are you talking about the rules committee, the collegiality that was shown wean democrats and republicans? >> guest: yes. and, you know, i understand, you know, some senators, they really seem like they're laughing about

it. and it's like i just couldn't believe it. i watched them, they were in, you know, the congress. they did an interview on another network, and they literally laughed and, like, hit shoulders and elbows against each other like this is funny. it's not funny. the rest of the world is embarrassed at us us. i just can't believe that they're smiling and laughing about it. >> host: oops, sorry, thought you were finished. let's go back to kay in washington. kay, go ahead and make your comment. >> caller: okay, i'm so sorry. of i'm so upset right now, but i can understand the frustration that's happening. you have the democrats appear to be trying to have a conversation, and you have the republicans that are talking in circles. it is absolutely unbelievable. these are supposed to be grown-ups that carry on the work of the american people. but it's -- i can't believe that they're not even having this discussion, they can't get to real issues because you've got

one group, one party talking in circles. they really need to be reprimanded for conduct un unbecoming -- [inaudible] >> host: staten island, new york, republican line, frank, what are your thoughts about what you've seen today? and about the government shutdown? >> caller: hi. thanks for taking my call. um, i just want to say to all the american people -- democrat, republican, independent -- president obama is asking us to drink the kool-aid, but he won't take a sip of it himself. we need people who are willing to compromise, not love things down the american people's throat like some weird tonic. i mean, come on now, people, just think about it. the american people are being asked to take the medicine that

he will not take himself. that's all i need to say. thank you. >> host: daniel tweets in: a head start bill, are you joking? it's eight days too late, and you hypocrites shut down government. pass a clean cr and a budget. the house is about to vote on one of its funding bills that it's been working on for the last week or so. today it's head start, impact aid for education. then they're going to be voting on the two rules that were discussed in the rules committee today about supercommittee and back pay for federal employees as well. another tweet, this from ryan, and if you don't reopen the government today, i will need to look for a new job, he says. jackie's in east lake, ohio, on our independent line. jackie, please go ahead. >> caller: hi. >> host: hi. >> caller: i was watching the hearing, and i listened to what

mr. sessions said, and he was totally off base all the way. i heard only one statement that really hit the nail on the held, and representative hastings said it. each representative has a brain in his head, he has his responsibility to the constituents in the united states of america to vote, and if the republicans would let him vote and use his brain, he doesn't need the leadership to tell him how to do it. he can go to the floor and make his vote. and that's what we need. we need independent people with courage and integrity, not this garbage that the republicans are throwing around. and i'm sorry, but, you know, even some of the democrats sound really like they don't know what's going on. and i thank you for listening. >> host: thank you, jackie in east lake, ohio.

the president is due to begin a press conference at 2 p.m.. we will show it to you here on c-span2. you can see it's a live picture of the briefing room at the white house. the white house press room. we will show it to you on c-span2 as long as the senate is not in session. they are due to come back at about 2:15. at that point we'll have been simulcasting it on c-span3 and, of course, on c-span.org, so you can turn to c-span3 or to c-span.org, but we don't want you to be shocked if all of a sudden we leave the president's press conference and go the senate as regular viewers know, we cover the house and senate gavel to gavel. so calvin, savannah, georgia, democrat. you are on c-span. what are your thoughts about the government shutdown, about what you've seen today? >> well, i agree with the last caller about everyone needs to do their job. i mean, we put them in congress

to do a job, you know in and if i had my way, i would put john boehner on the furlough. i would put him, let him see how all them americans feel that lost their jobs. you would put him on a furlough for at least a month so he could see how it feels to not be getting a paycheck, you know? and i definitely agree with the independent caller, the last caller. i mean, everybody has their own mind in congress, and they need to just bring everything to the floor and vote on a cr and let it go through right there. so we -- the government need to open back up, simple as that. and the debt ceiling should be raised. like it's always been raised in the past. >> host: and that's calvin in savannah, georgia. this is stephanie in magnolia, texas, republican line.

stephanie, please go ahead. >> >> caller: hi. pretty much i am not understanding how come they cannot manage to come to agreement in the congress. we've done it -- [inaudible] and this is the only time that we've gotten into this. so, basically, i'm at the point as a republican that when our party comes back up and everybody else for election, i'm going to encourage everybody to vote an entirely new group of people and not let any single seat run unopposed. >> host: alexander, germantown, maryland. hi, alexander. >> caller: hi. i'm just curious about what kind of example we're setting for these future voters who are under 20 who are coming out of high school and have no idea what's, you know, what our government is about and just get fed all this information in school. you know, who are they supposed to trust? how are they supposed to make a legitimate choice on their party

or any other economic or, you know, choice that has to do with their government? so i'm at a loss for words. >> host: thank you for calling in. you can see the network anchors, the network white house correspondents up there in the front. again, there's ed henry of fox up there, chuck todd on the far left of nbc, major garrett of cbs right in the middle, there's jonathan carl fixing his hair a little bit with abc, getting ready. what they do, they're told by the white house two minute warning which means the president will be coming out in two minutes, that way it gives them a chance to do their quick introductions on their respective networks and then be ready for the president when he comes out. the senate is due back in about 15 minutes as well, so if the president's on time, we'll show you about 15 minutes of this

press conference on c-span2, then it will move to c-span3 because the senate will be in. the house is in on c-span debating head start right now, and so a lot going on in washington today. a couple of press conferences have already been held, and that was the republicans and the democrats after their chosed meeting in the house. so those are available online at c-span.org. the rules committee is returning at about 2:15 as well, but that will be on c-span.org, so lots going on today. todd in arizona. >> caller: yes. >> host: please go ahead, todd. >> caller: yes. i think what people should be focusing on is the cost of trying to overturn obamacare over 40 times in the house and these piecemeal bills that

they're trying to pass. you know, it's from what i gather it costs like $2 million every time they try to overturn obamacare in the house, you know, those 40, 42 times or whatever and then how much does it cost the taxpayers every time hay go into try and pass these piecemeal bills. there's just millions and millions and millions of or dollars, you know, i heard there was a couple that is putting millions of dollars in to keep head start open in, like, six different states. what this shutdown is costing every day would take care of all that plus. i don't know, it just, it amazes me. it's frustrating. >> host: thank you, todd. beth tweets in: many forget when they say republicans lost that they won the house, and we run on the system of checks and balances. dems must cpr