>> when you look at it, make very certain it is at no cost to the government so it's reimbursement for whatever the costs are, so if furlough people have to be brought back at non-government expense in there better be a pretty long opinion that says no, we will not allow somebody to pay our folks, whatever the expense may be. and with that i would yield back. thank you, mr. secretary. ..

i'm happy to do that. >> i know we are still a very fluid situation, but we reached out and asked -- we were talking about pts and whether they could get health provided their city employees of the indian health service would provide direct health service to travel citizens and would largely be unaffected by the shutdown and that they would continue to provide correct clinical health care services as well as referrals for contract services that cannot be provided through their clinic. so, again, we just are somewhat confused as to the comment that was made in regard to post-traumatic stress, which i think everybody on the committee is very concerned with pity and i get a.

your statement that you can hear it today paints the worst possible picture that's out there. but in your statement it does not talk about the hundreds of thousands of employees that are still working in the health care that is provided so we just want to be honest with the questions and comments are provided. i'm not saying that you were not. i'm saying there was an inference later on that veterans with post-traumatic stress wouldn't get their treatment. and we are finding that there appears to be no corner anywhere in which they will not have that treatment provided to them. you'll recognize for five minutes. >> thank you mr. sherman. thank you for the presentation and answers and responses to the questions and statements. they have been helpful. i wanted to add to a comment you made about the va and veterans being dependent on other federal departments and agencies that

may or may not be funded in a piecemeal continuing resolution approach to the a i want to note that there are nearly 600,000 veterans work for the federal government and that constitutes nearly 50% of the entire federal work force. so, these men and women who've served there were country who are being furloughed or are working without an idea of when they are being paid or being hurt because of regardless what we are able to do when it comes to funding of va and the different agencies and departments within the va. that is especially important to me as a representative for texas where we have the fifth highest concentration of federal employees of any community in the country. 43,000 people that i represent work for the federal government. and if that 27% holds true, well over 12,000 of them are veterans who are being affected by this current shutdown. so i think it ads to the point

that you made that we cannot afford to look at this on a piecemeal basis. and when i look at the options to get out of this in the spirit of cooperation i love to join my colleagues in urging the senate and federal government to move forward on advanced funding for military construction and veteran's affairs. i think that is critical. in the short term, the best option is what everyone refers to as a funding bill or a queen see our that funds all of your services and programs and personnel at a sustainable level. the piecemeal approach that we saw last week, and i appreciate those that want to address the issue that way but it had no funding for the national cemetery administration, no funding for the general administration technology at the point that we are trying to get veterans that want to file fully

developed claims to do that online because when they do that, the wait time that is now 450 days in el paso comes down under 100 days and if we are not funding i.t. we are not helping them to get the response that they need and deserve. the construction of major projects and minor project is zero hours are the va homes and state cemetery. that's why i support a clean funding bill no strings attached in the government perhaps on a short-term basis where we can work out a larger deal. that to me is the quickest way to help everyone involved especially the veterans. and i think that's why the presidency and leaders of the national veterans service organization have come out against the piecemeal approach that want to see us tackle this comprehensively. and i know that is what you are trying to deutsch and ultimately what all of us want to do. to add to those we reached out yesterday to the local vso that

i'm going to ask questions of the secretary and i would like to know what you want me to ask. much of that you already addressed. timothy of post 165 says the budget is just as important as the va budget and we all agree with them and want to see that that moves forward. david of the american g.i. forum is concerned about an issue that you brought up. what happens if the shut down persists and we have veterans who are in homes that are homeless. we have the resources to take care of them. richard, vice commander of the american legion talks about shut down exacerbating problems that the veterans already have. david garcia the commander of the post 27 talks about veterans who are recipients of the social security benefits. having eighth really hard time after november 1st. and then davis, the president of the four and war actually came up with a solution. her solution was term limits for

the members of congress if we are unable to figure this problem out. but the frustration and the questions really are not with you. they are with us. and the need to respond to this in a way that will get the government of and running and functioning again for all departments because veterans work for all of them and all veterans services because they are impacted by all of them and again, from my perspective, the quickest and the cleanest way to do this and we can have the government up and running tonight is to vote for a queen funding bill. so, mr. secretary again, thank you for your presence today answering the questions and commenting on the statement. my time is up so i will deal back to the chairman. >> thank you. you are recognized. >> thank you mr. secretary. and also, thank you men and women that work for your department and by debate could take care of those that have made a major sacrifice.

and my question goes to the hospitals that are under construction by the va. the va contingency plans state of certain, quote, major construction and facilities management support functions will be suspended, end of quote, during the shutdown. what has been the status of the four ongoing major projects in las vegas, new orleans during the shutdown? >> congressman, i indicated that where we have work underway outside that work will continue. our administrative oversight responsibilities will be diminished, but we will exercise those responsibilities. payment, payments to contractors and therefore, payments to subs in the administrative process that will be slowed.

but in time payment will be made. we just don't have the folks to do that as robustly as we would like. but, in terms of site work with supervision that would continue in those locations. >> mr. secretary, as you know, the payment has already been -- the process has already been very slow according to the gao report that cannot in april. what in terms of these setbacks are you talking about will they affect in your view of a completion date and the budget totals for each project for these four major hospitals? >> our work is slowed the longer this goes. i would be concerned if we begin to affect the end of the project that we continue to slide

project execution to the right. >> thank you mr. chairman. i yield back. >> you are recognized for five minutes. >> thank you mr. chairman. i wish to associate myself with remarks from the gentleman from texas. i also want to thank the chairman for the tone he set for this committee. a very bipartisan sentiment. i think that you, mr. chairman, understand each of us reserve the party and have a deep and sincere commitment to the nation's veterans. so thank you for that, mr. chairman. we also state that, you know, beyond the bipartisan bill that we passed on the veterans even the budget control act of 2011 that flex that a bipartisan spirit and the fact that

exempted the veterans administration from the sequestration cuts. and it's my belief that it's my conjecture in the consideration the bill has to the deal with the complexities of sequestration and the divisions that are occurring between the two sides and there's a reluctance to pass the appropriations bills in total what we are dealing with in terms of what we are going to -- how we are going to have to deal with that limit, whether it is lifted were some negotiations will happen on that. we need to get to negotiations on the bigger picture. i cherish this committee and being on it, because it is one corner of the congress that is still functional. and i want to fight fiercely to keep that spirit. and i thank the chairman for the small ways in the committee that he has tried to keep that alive

i yield back the balance of my time. i have to get back to a meeting in my office. >> it looks like the doctor is gone. mr. bilirakis, you are recognized. >> thank you, mr. germany and for your testimony, general. a general, let's summarize again. i walked in just a little late on your statement. but which programs i understand because of legislation that we passed the va, the health care, the outpatient clinics, hospitals are protected; is that correct? they will not be impacted? tell me which programs i think the constituents have a right to know. and if you could briefly summarize. >> congressman, the veterans health administration because of

its special opportunity to have the advance appropriations courtesy of the congress is funded. and so, that is the hospitals, the medical centers, hospitals, veterans' centers, community-based clinics and every version of health care centers in between to read >> no exception, correct? no exception? >> the only exception where there is impact is chicago where i say it is operating, but it is in and accepted category. everyone else and the va system is fully funded. >> thank you very much. which programs will be impacted in your opinion? and if you can give me some deadlines. i know we went through a lot of this, but i would like for you to summarize. >> all of the other programs that are not advanced funded are

impacted and are being impacted. some of this is the degree to which and when they are going to be impacted is a function of how much 2013 of the residual carryover funds we have available and the device the the congress authorizes a certain percentage is that we are allowed to use as a carryover to transition between the budget year some. but if this continues, every one of our departments will be impacted. we have a requirement in the administration even if we have expended the mandatory account this is one of the clauses for exception to keep people working

at that point there will be a significant requirement to furlough that will be working until the end of this month, to the end of this month. we have roughly a thousand folks operating. to ensure that we can receive, account, date stamped and control claims. through the normal process and the call centers and working in the call center as well. >> thank you mr. chairman. i yield back. >> mr. mcleod. >> mr. secretary, i know that you said that the va not only deals with the va, but other

departments also. so the veterans received the educational benefits and stipends under the g.i. bill and that are going to be attending school now because school has already started at the various institutions. what will happen after november 1st? if they won't get their money, have you talked to the colleges and institutions and universities? >> congressman, we are doing everything that we can. while we have the mandatory funds available at least two accounts -- to categories that we would expand the money to cover immediately. one of them is the retroactive aspect of the claim. so, someone who is due money for previous authorizations up until this point to the best of our ability we pay those and for the students currently in school we pay those as well but this draws

on a mandatory account time speaking about so on the first of november -- before the end of this month it will be in a situation where i can no longer pay. and the november payments that should be going up will not be able to do that unless more mandatory funding is provided. so, it's -- if there is funding and the mandatory account, which has got to come through appropriation, then i can accept people to continue to work to draw that down without that by law i have to furlough these folks. >> what happens to the students are already in class is that have already started the semester or the quarter, whichever they are on. >> at this point and this is a crucial question because for students who have already registered and have their tuition and fees paid up front,

i think they are going to be okay. we're if the of from their books stipend, they are probably covered. every situation is different. but i will not be able to pay the monthly housing stipend. that would be an issue to the >> have the schools or the universities or the colleges made any kind of -- i sure they are aware of our shenanigans' here. >> i can assure you that we have reached out to schools and doing the best we can to get their support and cooperation to be able to carry this forward for payment. but schools are not involved in the housing stipend. that is for the va to the students said that is an issue. and i would tell you that in my past experience with schools there are 6,000 of them and so

we want to make sure that we've contact with all of them. >> thank you for the testimony today. >> thank you. you are recognized for five minutes to get >> thank you mr. chairman and good to see you mr. secretary. you mentioned that there would be delayed. we were notified more than four weeks ago there was already a delay. so, my question is that it obviously has nothing to do with this government shut down. would your plan be to expedite that once the furlough workers are back and if something was delayed prior to the shutdown it would be expedited after the shutdown? >> we will do our best to get back on schedule. it was going sloper than we would like but this is just an exacerbated the situation. our effort will be to get all of these projects back on line as soon as we can. >> my second question is according to the most recent monday morning report, the regional office has 11,460

claims pending but has nothing to do with the government shut down. this is prior to the shutdown and the claims are taking an average of 402 days to complete. over year still in the state of indiana the process of the claims. so, my first question is is there an urgent plea and when these workers come back to deal with these hot spots in the country and number two, if the plan retroactive fairness act signed by the president are your employees coming back to work the next morning? >> i don't know about the next morning but as soon as they are notified, we expect -- like indiana with 11,000 veterans by no fault of their own, no fault of a government shutdown sitting for over a year still waiting for the claims to be mitigated in their behalf. >> i think that you will recall we have made decisions that created an increase in the

inventory and increased the backlog and we predicted three years ago that the backlog would sort of hit the high point this year and it did on 25 of march. since that time, we per your ties claims that order than two years of essentially 99% of those have done. claims that are one year of age or older and well into the 80% of taking that down from like 300,000 down into the double digits. i will have to look at indianapolis and see what the issues are. but they would be in this prioritization that we have been and pivoted anything older than one year we intended to have done here before the end of this year. and we are on the track to do that and i would like to get back on it. >> ausley buhle bac mai tais. >> you are recognized for five

minutes. >> thank you mr. secretary for being here. i would apologize for the inappropriate attempt by people to drag you into the politics of this unfortunate situation. i'm the ranking member of the disability assistance subcommittee. and by carefully monitor those monday morning reports. i guess we want people to get those now because of this unnecessary shutdown. and i optimistic about the strategy made. we have heard in that committee about the 80% of the one your backlog, the 99% of the to your backlogs. i think it is remarkable progress. and it is just a shame that some of that is going to now be pushed back because of this shutdown. we have spoken in number of times about what is happening in the office that served in las vegas and it also has a very long waiting period but we have

addressed some of that. the general has been out to visit and that is kind of in process and making some progress as still a long way to go. but i have been hearing some conflicting reports about the closing of the regional offices. some closed and some not. could you kind of go into some detail about how that choice is being made or would is happening in those regional offices during the the shot down? >> commerce one, i laid out a time line here that i have roughly the benefits administration about 20,000 people, nearly 8,000 of them have been furloughed two days ago to read the remaining 12, 13,000 continue to work because there is -- there are mandatory funds available in the account, and i continue to draw down on that. at the plate that mandatory account is depleted before the

end of this month, that will happen. at that point, i have no necessary implication to continue to have this work force present. and at that point, i will -- we will be forced to furlough these individuals. the law requires it to get beyond that, we will keep a small work force present. my understanding is all of the regional offices and the national call center will have presence in order to receive claims and control that property for the veterans who have made the effort to submit them. but it will be much reduced operation, reseed and note processing. >> but you will be making choices between the office and the reno office or the indianapolis office that's going to be across-the-board. >> that's correct. >> and if somebody walks in,

will there be somebody there to receive a claimant but they won't get information about the progress of the claim? is that basically how that will work? >> yes, the claims can be submitted. i will have to -- by location, we are in facilities that are run by the general services administration and merely walking and we will have to find out exactly how that goes. but we are not the sole occupant of the regional offices and many of the offices that are located. but that is a good point. that is something that i will go check on. >> and as they call and they can't get you there been to call our office to find out. if a call to get an update on claims what will happen? >> the national call center will be taking calls, and they will be up and running for just that reason. >> but not the regional offices to get >> of the regional offices will

be much more reduced. mauney sense is they will be fully engaged in receiving and date stamping claims and they won't be running a call center out of the regional offices. >> thank you very much for what you are trying to do to make the most of a bad situation. i can only imagine the challenges that you are facing are much greater than those that you have even outlined for us here today because of this unnecessary shutdown. thank you. >> thank you mr. chairman and mr. shinseki for being here today and for the service to the country and to the nation's veterans. i want to start by getting a shot out to the regional office. i visited with them several times over the last two years to get and they were making remarkable progress on taking care of their disability backlog. the director has done an

outstanding job. i'm very concerned about the impact the shutdown could have on their operations and what could potentially happen to the veterans to be as i have a couple of questions in that regard it pitted the first one is why is the g.i. bill hotline closed when other hot lines remain open. >> why is it ) other vba hot lines remained open? >> the one hot line that will remain open as the crisis. the veterans crisis hot line that is funded by the health administration. >> i talk about the call center -- the call center is apparently close to. >> i will try to provide you a

better answer to this gimmick that will be fine. you can follow up. the next question is fairly simple, but it's going to take a lot of time to give you the background so that we can build up to eight. and it goes back a few months starting with the new information that says the white house had some involvement in the irs targeting of certain groups. and then into bills by their from saying that the park service has said they have been told to make it as tough on americans as possible shutdown period. that doesn't have to do with you or me right now but that on september 19th, this committee held a hearing and it had assistant secretary john moodie and i asked a question about whether or not the offices of congressional legislative affairs had ever been influenced by the white house in terms of its responses to congress and she replied at that time that

they had not. but then she sent me a follow-up letter a few days later, and she said that sometimes the white house does intervene on the correspondence between the fda and congress did so again, this is still sitting out the background for this information. and then if you go through the timeline of the activities that we have seen recently, there was a field guide issued on friday september 27th and they stated that the disabilities claims processing wouldn't be affected. it amounts of timber 28, they notified the house veterans' affairs committee that they wouldn't be able to send the november benefit checks because funding would run out late october and you have confirmed that today. so there is nothing new there. but then on september 30th, president obama had an interview and he stated that veterans, and i quote, veterans will find their support center is not staffed which is a direct contribution of the field guide that said that the vet centers wouldn't be affected from a couple days earlier. then the same interview the president also said the shutdown

will affect somebody in the va office who is not ptsd. on october 1st, the updated the field guide -- or it was amended to add that the end of month caveat to benefits payment and the original field guide. .. i think if your perspective is

that there is the ability to reach in and understand and influence how we operate, i would say it's just the opposite. now look, we are faced with an unusual event. a shutdown of government doesn't occur frequently, and we have no good plans in place. we had to go back and look at what happened in 96 to have some idea what the requirements were going to be. at the same time we have a 13 close-up, and you know, on the fifth of september or whenever ms. mooney testified, if someone had said we're going to shut the government down, i will guarantee between the fifth of september at the 30th of september there would've been actions that i would have perhaps taken differently. that didn't become obvious to us until last week, maybe wednesday of the last week of september. then we had to do these assessments. if your complaint is that we -- >> may i interrupt for just a minute?

let me reclaim my time for just a minute. i'm not complaining. i was asking you a simple question whether or not the white house had any influence over the timetable for the va shutdown process. i think you've answered it no. and i just wanted to say -- >> the answer is no. >> i'm glad to hear that answer. you and i both agreed that -- let me rephrase that. i think most of us in here agree that the house has done its work by passing two appropriations bills that would deal with this issue. one is the milcon bill which would fully fund the va. we wouldn't be sitting here having this discussion today. also we passed h.j. res. 72 last week which would fund the va so that we wouldn't have this conversation. both those bills passed on a bipartisan basis. i would urge those folks that are listening to this hearing to be sure to influence the senate to take up those bills. thank you, mr. chairman. i yield back. >> thank you for much. ms. brown, you are recognized for five minutes.

>> thank you. thank you, mr. secretary, for being here. i keep hearing the senate, the senate. i put the responsibility straight here with the house. we could pass a clean c.r. and would not be sitting here. and i have done my entire career all i could do that veterans would not be caught up with the house and the senate, and i don't blame the senate. i thank god for the senate. the bad politics of this house. and at some point, you know, let's don't confuse nobody with the facts. we are talking about november 1. i want to talk about october 17. if we do not pass the full faith and credit, if we default, what will happen to all of the mothers and spouses in the tricare and the checks that go out for the va? tell us what's going to happen

when these people in the house let us default on our credit. what happens to the va? and the people that's been talking to me are not federal employees. they are contractors. and the contractors are not going to get any back pay. and they are being laid off in droves because the government is not effective. and the house is responsible. they could pass a clean c.r. for the first time ever in the history, i voted against a va bill because it was $6 billion less than what we passed out of here. so now please respond. >> congresswoman, i would just repeat what the president has pointed out. what he looks to the congress to do is two things. one, provide a budget so we can

operate as a government, and, two, pay the bills have already been occur. both of those issues are at play here. i'm looking for a budget, and so is the rest of the government, so we can do what we are charged to do. and then paying the bills is the issue of the debt ceiling, and those are authorizations that already occurred. >> but what happens on the 17th if we default? what happens to the va? the veterans ask me will they get their checks? >> congresswoman, i am planning to operate as long as i can this month, but at a certain point i will begin to furlough people. that will have to do with my inability to continue to operate under the carryover. and so whatever occurs with the discussions of the debt ceiling, i imagine it will be even worse.

but beginning here in the days to weeks, before the end of this month, for the most part the va will be reduced in operations. my office will be 90% shut down, my office. legislative affairs with whom you deal frequently will be down to one person. public affairs down to one person. and then for the rest of our operation, other than receiving claims and looking after families that are expecting us to provide the appropriate burial services, all of that will be reduced. >> so i just want to be clear. i want you to know this is a self-imposed disaster on the veterans and on the country. there is no need as we sit here. i mean, the senate and the president have agreed to the

core levels of the house. they have agreed to it. clean c.r. and we could move forward. but yet we have people that want to blame the senate, want to blame the president. at 20 minutes to 12 we want a conference. it was over. this house is inept, and i've been in your -- and i've been here for 22 years and i've never seen anything like the people who serve in this house want to act like they care about the veterans. they talk the talk but they don't walk the walk. they are out at the cemeteries or out at the memorials saying, we don't know why it's shut down. well, you voted to shut it down a few hours earlier. this is a sad state of affairs. this committee used to be bipartisan.

and now you've got a few members that's dragging the house of representatives down, the people's house. i yield back the balance of my time. >> thank you. the gentlelady time has completely expired. and for the members of this committee and those that may be listening today, the continuing resolution that the house actually put on the floor that has been berated by a couple of members saying that it was less than folks wanted by $6 billion, was exactly the same piece of legislation that senator sanders filed monday night. and so folks that are out there saying we shouldn't do this by piecemeal, senator sanders, along with mr. begich, mr. tester and mr. blumenthal, which coincidentally held a news

conference at the very same time we've been having this hearing with the secretary, to say that we should not be using him as a punching bag, mr. secretary, i trust that we have not used you as a punching bag today. we are trying to get the information out to the veterans. and again, you have talked in depth about those things that we will not be able to do. but my question, how many employees within va will still be on the job after november 1, if this shutdown continues? >> again, mr. chairman, let me take that one for the record to give you the specificity that you're looking for. as i said, there's still factors coming together. tell me how long that operate.

i told you the mandatory funds are expected to be depleted before the end of this month. affecting both the one november checks and affecting vba in large measure, their present workforce about 13,000 people will be severely reduced. it would be down to about 1100, and roughly 1000 people in vba. so we will have people function in vba, and hence it will likewise have to furlough a significant portion of their workforce and will go to modified operations. vha is fully funded. so when you look at the county will look very large but that's because vha is about 80% of our workforce, and our budget. >> mr. chairman? >> but i do think it's important to remember that your total

employees are about 335,000. so when we talk about numbers of 10,000, 4000, those are big numbers. but as they relate to the overall number of 335, i would appreciate, and you've already said that you would take it for the record, i would appreciate you getting that information to us. >> mr. chairman? i have just a quick question. >> the chair does not mechanize -- does not recognize the gentleman from florida. her time has expired. >> i have a question, mr. chairman, on the question that you're asking the secretary. you're asking the number of employees. my question is how many people that receive checks would not be getting those checks. i think that's a bigger question. >> again, the gentlelady is not recognized for her question. and i appreciate what she's asking, but, you know, i would -- we knew that the possibility of this some time ago.

i don't believe anybody in this room wanted to be where we are today. do you believe the same thing, mr. secretary? >> you know, from my background, i would say look at all the options. this is not one i believe what -- i believed would happen. i just didn't think the august members of this committee, or the congress, would allow this to happen. so i had plans, and we have quickly dusted them off, and within 72 hours have gone into emergency procedures to continue to take care of veterans as long as we could. and then ensure the orderly shutdown of our activities so we're taking care of our people as well. so, mr. chairman, if you knew that the shutdown was going to happen, it wasn't shared with me. >> yes, you always look at the

possibilities i didn't think -- i just didn't think you would allow this to happen. >> and i think most members of this committee would say that we do not want to be here. this was not an intended consequence, but we are here and we've asked you to come in and talk to us, and my question i guess is, at what point did you start doing extraordinary measures to prepare for this and begin to scale back some expenditures so that you would not be perceived as making foolish expenditures of funds that may be necessary, and you probably can gather where i'm going with this question, and i -- >> i don't gather where you're going. >> how did we end up with a $500,000 worth of art in kansas? why have we been spending over $1 million in the washington, d.c. area on pr ads?

again, i think those that are being furloughed want these questions asked. it's not a political question. it's a question as to prioritization, because we're talking about people not getting the benefits that they've earned, not being able to be buried in a timely fashion. yet we can spend hundreds of thousands of dollars on things that probably the general public would think were in consequential to taking care of our veterans. >> you raised artwork, and i think the suggestion that this was year end spending, that's not the case. there were three facilities that have been in the process of being constructed, or major refurbishment. in the case of the miami

facility, it's an 843,000 square foot facility, 11 force. major renovations in this facility had not been done since the 1980s, and the project was completed as part of the project was to replace wall hangings, photographs, prints that add to that environment that says it's a healing environment, and welcoming to veterans. los angeles, a 16,000 square foot facility in which homeless and mental health clinics have been provided. and then the jacksonville community based outpatient clinic, a new construction project. 102000 square feet, and needed to be outfitted. all totaled, about 1400, a little over 1400 wall hangings, photographs, prints, pictures of veterans, pictures of local scenery that veterans in that area would recognize.

i think artwork is probably an inappropriate description here. i think the average cost is under $400. all expenses included. those were part of the project and they were funded in part of the execution. you know, if there was a way to have anticipated the shutdown and redirected some of those monies, i probably would have done it, but again, i say that it's not until the last week in september that it was clear that what was going to happen would happen. and we went into emergency procedure. >> i apologize for not recognizing mr. mcnerney for your question. thank you for your indulgence, and you are recognized. i want to thank you, mr.

chairman, and also ranking member shot for inviting here and other members of the committee for not objecting but it's good to be becky. it's a great committee. this is a terrible hearing though to make that happen. so i do want to say the situation is dire. on november 1, we are going to cut off hundreds of thousands of disability recipients, students that are depending on g.i. bill's, families whose veterans or active servicemembers who have died. i think the american public needs to know that our situation. we are going to be sending hundreds of thousands of people into dire straits, maybe making them homeless, and there's no excuse. we need to solve this problem. we need to solve it in the next week. so, i do have some specific questions. mr. secretary, in addition to mr. denham, my colleague and neighbor, i would like to know from you about the impact of the shutdown on the french camp project but i would like to

specifically its priority. and i will take that off-line. now, as you know, the veteran service organizations staff members, they use the the regional offices to help council veterans, but vso staff members are not members or are not employees of the va. could they be allowed them to continue to use the facility? i understand a lot of them are shut out from the facilities to make, use those facilities to help council our veterans. >> i am told that we are not allowed to do that, but again, this is a day-to-day assessment. we go back and check to make sure that the interpretation of the law is clear. but these are some pretty well-defined rules that we operate under.

the anti-deficiency act as provisions for two categories. one is protection of life and property, and the other one is necessary implication. >> well, are there any other functions that the vso normally performed that they're not able to perform now? >> we will look for every opportunity to help them be successful. in their mission. it's part of our mission as well. but, frankly, we are trying to process as many claims as we can before the mandatory account is depleted. and then thereafter we are in to receiving and date stamping claims. >> well, you said i believe that the va processing claims are continuing. are there decisions being made about these claims? and if so, are the veterans

being notified about those decisions? or is that on hold? >> in those circumstances where we are able to pay, and i described the retroactive aspects of this, we won't be able to pay continuing monthly benefits. but for those veterans that have a date stamp that goes back some time when that is awarded, we try to pay the retroactive portion of that. the monthly cycle picks up in november. >> so they will be notified if a decision is made even if they're not able to get a check? >> they will be notified if we are able to pay the retroactive aspect of that, and then we will process the remainder of the claims and put that, you know, in the line. for students are currently in school, i think i answered the question heard that says as long as we have mandatory funds

remaining, we will honor as many of those requests as we can. but those all draw the mandatory the countdown, before the end of the month it will be depleted and then i will -- we will look to furlough the workforce that has been doing that. >> are the prescription drug benefits being impacted, veterans drug benefits? >> say that again, i'm sorry. >> are the veterans prescription drug benefits being impacted? >> prescriptions, veterans health administration is fully funded, some medications are available and will be filled. >> thank you, mr. chairman for allowing me to participate today. >> thank you very much. any other questions? mr. coffman? >> thank you, mr. chairman. just one more question. mr. secretary, my oversight investigation subcommittee uncovered that the va

hypersecretive protection measures were inadequate even when the va has been fully funded before the shutdown. in fact, the investigation discovered numerous occurrences when foreign state-sponsored hackers infiltrated the va network. hull house the shutdown affected their private information of veterans and their families? are these 20 million individuals in the va system now at even greater risk? >> congressman, i will tell you that what we know, we have, we will have the ability to respond to what we know, but as you would expect, there's more to this and sometimes even we are able to know. so we do take steps to assure the security of our system.

every event better prepares us for the next. we are active here. >> thank you, mr. chairman. i yield back. >> thank you. mr. michaud, you are recognized. >> thank you, mr. chairman. a quick follow-up question, mr. secretary. you mentioned oath about the delays and the overtime yet in the original budget you presented to congress, as well as anticipating i think it was $40 million to carry over our next year's budget. since you've utilized that $40 million to get carried over, and since the delays have caused a backlog to creep back up again, will you be requesting -- >> we will be the last few minutes of this hearing with a quick reminder that you can see this or any other c-span if an online anytime at c-span.org. live now to capitol hill for the house rules committee. they are taking of a newly proposed farm bill and we're told this legislation will make its way to the house floor later today. is just getting under way.

live coverage on c-span2. >> i would like to direct the house to go to conference with the senate armed the farm bill. this is a very important step in implementing market-based reforms to our nation's agricultural programs, designed to provide our farmers and ranchers with the tools they need to be successful in a global marketplace, as well as a competitive marketplace in this country, as well as reforming our nation's nutrition programs to help eliminate waste, fraud, and abuse while promoting essential benefits for america's neediest families. additionally, this committee, rules committee will consider census of the house, the first of these will provide a census of house on important reforms to america's sugar programs and the second pertains to important changes to our nation's crop insurance laws. and before i recognize the distinguished young chairman of the agriculture committee from

oklahoma, mr. lucas, i would like to defer if i can at this time to the ranking member from new york for any opening statements she may choose to make. >> thank you, mr. chairman. mr. lucas, it's a pleasure to see. i know you've worked very hard to get to the point where you can go to conference. and before we started, mr. lucas and i were talking about the loss of 70,000 head of cattle and northern plains due to a snowstorm. i'm sure you all know about that. they have no theme help -- theme help and the farm service offices are shut. and i must tell you that this is gigantic thing but there are small things at her as we'll. i saw two groups of high school kids touring the capital today. and it's appeared, i know how many bake sales and how many carwashes it takes to raise the money to come to washington, to visit your national capital. and it broke my heart this

morning, they can't even get into the capital and let somebody here, some member of congress is willing to give them a tour of the capitol because there's no one to do that. so before we start this come it's very important and we've looked forward to this, always about the pricing going up and what farmers are facing. i would like come if you could tell me, please, when you expect we will be dealing with the c.r.? do we have some idea? do you suspect we'l we will go k into rules again today or tomorrow, or what is your expectations be? i thank the gentlewoman. i would like to engage as you choose. >> absolutely. >> last night, members of republican leaders including myself and the gentleman from north carolina, the vice chairman of the committee, this box, and i joined some of our colleagues for committee chairman also, and several other members who we consider important people to talk about

the issues surrounding the government shutdown and the debt limit that is coming. met with the president of the united states at the white house. he was most cordial to invite us to the white house, and we accepted. we readily accepted, as you know, because we are all trying to deal with this. the president and the leaders of the house, speaker john boehner, our majority there, eric cantor and our young with, ed mccarthy, all walked away with an agreement that we were going to immediately begin working with the white house to resolve any issues that is related to the c.r. and that was i think met by our group as a positive sign. we believe in negotiation. we went down there to do that. and as best i can tell it is still ongoing. and so until is a delight for the black smoke comes out of the

chimneys, we are going to keep working. that would be an indication i think to a lot of people about what we would do. i would say, answer your question, that pending the outcome of those discussions, between the white house and us, we are on hold. >> i heard congresswoman jenkins say this morning that the government would be opened by monday. it is a federal holiday. but that was what her idea was that they would have everything open by monday. >> well, i have become accepted to make that as soon as we become aware of an agreement, that i will immediately and be pleased to call you and let you know -- >> you don't have any reason to believe we will come back? >> i have every reason to believe that as quickly as understanding is reached, i

think it's mostly a deal as opposed to an agreement. i think they are after, or maybe -- depends on how you look at it. but i think what we'll do is as quickly as we can march there and have an understanding, an agreement, idea or an agreement, we will be very pleased -- i'm going to be here spent we sort have got to get that. the idea of paying people retroactively when they could be earning their pay and working out so they makes no sense. and i frankly think it would be a very wonderful thing we could do and these everybody's minds if we could take up the senate c.r. today, opened the government. >> yes, ma'am. and still engaged in the discussion would the gentlewoman. i would say to you, we've tried to do a couple things and march a couple bills forward in telecommuting. we want back at work, the faa.

we consider what they do essential. while we're doing this. we had discussions the other day that former speaker tip o'neill had to deal with this 12 times, even in his term. we are doing the same. we are trying to do our best. as it relates to the issue of agreeing to pay somebody, i think that would allow people who are at home to focus on making provisions with their bank, the credit union on how they would make sure that they get take out a short term loan, et cetera. ..

as a matter of fact, i think that was the point that was made at least ten times last night. >> good for him. >> there was a little bit of a struggle in that. >> there may be that there are 800,000 people out of work who are going to be paid for the work anyway. thank you. >> former speaker o'neill's name has been brought up several times i hope and a favorable way. >> saying that we've been through this before when the speaker -- you are counting shutdowns as they were never

shut downs like this. the government was shut down and the cases that you are siding sometimes it was a particular appropriations bill that was passed. was a matter of hours before it was fixed for over a weekend. it was never like this and the speaker of the house never threatened to default on the debt using that as leverage to try to get something. so i appreciate -- i think sometimes we make comparisons that are not always accurate and i think this is one of those cases. i just feel kind of compelled to defend tip o'neill because right now there is no comparison. and i think the gentleman for yielding and i just want to point that out. >> the gentleman still controls the time. >> i yield back. >> thank you very much. mr. lucas, thank you for taking the time to be with us today.

i know that not only i, but each of my colleagues to the extent the american people were listening today want to thank you not only for your diligence and hard work and service to this great nation but caring about people, the men and women of our communities who put food on the table and are the world's champions in that technology and innovativeness and i want to welcome you. i know you spend a lot of time trying to get us to do our job. we are now i think have a chance we can give you the range and what you do that. so if the gentleman has anything in writing. >> thank you mr. chairman for the opportunity to come visit again. i probably have never expected to spend this much time on a farm bill process never in my wildest imagination but this has been a challenging set of circumstances that we have dealt with on the kennedys. as we have worked our way to this point.

we are ready to go to conference with of the united states senate and designated conferees. we need this procedural matter addressed so that we can officials we have conferees on the majority and iron out the differences. there are differences between the two drafts of the farm belt. that is with a conference committee is for is to come up with a consensus that a majority of both parties can accept, something help lead the president of the united states will sign into law. but a consensus that will be good for not only rural america or the production agriculture, but for consumers here in the united states and in effect around the world. as i have said many times and i think in front of this group, it shouldn't be this hard but we live in a time when things are hard so we just have to work a little harder. with that mr. chairman think you for the consideration of the committee and i look forward to the actions that you will take today. >> i yield myself two minutes to

ask the gentleman a question. we have lots of discussions about going to conference. and as you know, you were here some time ago and you've been working on this. tell me about going to conference with the senate and the kind of things i assume you've worked with them to be prepared. >> let me simply say the dialogue that i have had with my ranking member mr. peterson i think the dialogue but we have had with all of the members, the hearings, the markups i think we have generally worked as a group on the committee and in particular the importance of the chairman and ranking member's relationship and i've served as the ranking member and the chairman site seen both perspectives of the gavel so to speak. but we have worked hard and have an almost constant line of communication with the chairwoman of the senate agricultural committee and had interactions with the ranking member of the committee.

that's a special relationship too i might add. but we have worked very hard. you might call things pre-conference. all i am of the school of thought that believes when many items in the house and senate document our singular or close and as much of that can be worked out should the worked out in the most expeditious fashion and we have accomplished a good amount of that and the chairwoman and the ranking member of from the side. but ultimately there are just issues that require a full conference, full airing of the process to be determined and that is what i am asking for the opportunity now. everything that we can do, which is much of the bill. i think the groundwork has been laid by the constant dialogue. but now all i need a full conference to iron out some big challenging differences. >> i would yield to the vice chair for the response. >> thank you, mr. chairman pete

i know that the congressman lucas has worked very diligently on this bill. he and i had many conversations about it, and i appreciate the fact that he has brought us into this point and i hope very much that as a result of having a conference committee that we will be able to hire out the differences with the senate and passed a bill that won't make everybody happy, but it will help get us closer to where we should be on these issues. i have no questions, mr. chairman but i thank you for your hard work. >> thank you. the gentlewoman from new york. >> i want to express my great thanks to you. not only have you done this with skill but also with a lot of patients. this is such an important bill. as i said on the floor, passing

a farm bill was almost part of a pledge of allegiance i think at this has been an operation i would like to see come to an end shortly. and i hope that we can resolve the issue of the snap program. thank you. >> the gentleman from utah is recognized. >> the gentleman has no request for time. the gentleman from massachusetts. >> i want to thank the chairman of the agricultural committee for the dedication to get the farm bill. i get to sit on that committee and i know how hard he worked and held bipartisan he's attempted to work on that committee. and i agree with him that passing a farm bill shouldn't be this hard. there's some good things in the bill and there's some things that i disagree with, but we've got to -- you know, in this compromise we've got to work those things out. there's one thing that i really, really, really disagree with that i hope can be remedied in conference, and that is what i

think is an unfortunate nutrition title. and i, you know, will be urging not only the chairman but the ranking member and my friends over in the senate to fix that. you know, i don't believe what was passed on the house floor is reform. i think it's going to hurt a lot of people. and i think for many of us to be able to vote for a farm bill we are going to have to change that, not just by a little bit, but dramatically. i will be the wind -- i will be the hurricane at your back as you go to conference -- [laughter] -- urging you to get it right as we go to the staff. i think the gentleman. >> the gentleman yield that his time and by the way, i know there have been prior discussions of this on the agricultural committee who are great representatives. we feel like the representative to the agricultural committee. the gentleman of massachusetts.

and plus, he advocates for things that are important and have substance. and i know that he will pay attention to the success of the conference. and i thank the gentleman for his time and his work as they continue. >> the chairman from oklahoma is recognized. >> thank you mr. chairman. it's always a pleasure to see my friend. the gentle lady from virginia said that it wouldn't make everybody happy, but i can assure you it's going to make about 14,000 farmers and ranchers in oklahoma happy. and i know -- i am so appreciative of what you have done to get us to this point. and i know that he will have a challenging conference because there are some discrepancies. but i know what your relationship is with your ranking member.

and i know how well you know the politics of this and i suspect you will arrive at a reasonable compromise that will make it possible for a lot of our friends that have concerns about the bill to this point to feel comfortable and my hope that the end of this process and because i think it's where you've always wanted us to be that we've had a bipartisan vote in favor of this bill coming out of the conference and i think that is frankly because of your skills and because frankly the quality of the people that you are working with both on our side of the rotunda and the folks on the other side of the rotunda. i know that you have been deeply engaged in this for years, not weeks or months, but for years in a setting this forward. and it's only that preparation that's gotten to this point. so i want to thank you. i have voted for every iteration of this. i guess i ought to reserve the

right to read it but i've never seen a piece of legislation that i couldn't vote for with a great deal of enthusiasm and i am quite convinced i will have the opportunity. i just urge you to bring it back to us before the end of the year. sooner is better. let's not run out of time on this one. and i think people on both sides of the aisle will be able to be proud of the progress that you bring back. with that i yield back. >> the gentleman is recognized. >> thank you, mr. chairman. i just had a couple of questions. can you may be described to me just and kind of laymen's terms and 30 seconds or minutes, but each of these instructions provisions do. the tariff rate for sugar i think that relates to something -- there is an amendment are not that and maybe you can update that and i don't know if it is the same or different the tariff

issue that's a jurisdictional issue with our good friends of the ways and means. but on the crop insurance side, i can't touch on that. the question comes down essentially to who should be allowed to participate in the federal crop insurance and who shouldn't. if your income level is above a certain level and the amount of the help you get from the federal government would be reduced. on first blush that seems like a very populist sort of a prospective. but bear in mind that the federal crop insurance programs are unlike any other form of insurance. they are about creating a risk pool. as many people created as possible paying premiums into that. spreading out the potential risk. and when there is a problem or a disaster a loving couple in effect to absorb that portion of loss to the just like life insurance, just like any other kind of insurance.

i have concerns on the one hand about language that would restrict participation in the program because it shrinks the pool. it shrinks the pool and runs the risk of impacting with the cost will be a leader and how efficient the programs will be. i can tell you that the other body has language that deals with studies that would give the secretary flexibility not to make the changes if it's determined that their language would detrimentally impact the whole crop insurance program. it's not necessarily in this language. but i would also tell you from another perspective if a farm bill is about raising food, making sure we have enough to eat and we have enough fiber them of resources should go to the people that raise the food and fiber who deliver that

product. picking winners and cruisers among who should be participating stepping away from the concept of encouraging production and taking a perspective of deciding who gets to be involved in farming by half a little problem with that, too. the main issue is the question on how you and that the insurance pool. >> let b.c. -- i remember there was an amendment that failed on the floor that what have i think when affected the income of 250,000 up. this instruction limits premium subsidies for 750,000 so would you characterize -- >> crop insurance only. >> -- is this a compromise for the other -- is that what this is? because i did support that it failed. i wanted to limit that. so i mean, is their something

that partially limits it and is a compromise between those who did and didn't? >> let's just say the opinion of my colleagues are very important to me, but the decisions of the united states house in passing this bill mean a great deal to me. >> great. that actually transition to my next question, which i was -- as you can probably tell agriculture doesn't have a huge presence in my district. we have some technical companies like any district -- >> we will leave this hearing on the farm programs at this point. to go live to the u.s. senate gaveling backend for more debate on the government shut down. was the opportunity for america, the president of united states, to be the headliner. and instead the president of china was the headliner. and there were questioned asked adds to whether america was open for business. we've been hurt by this shutdown, make no mistake about it. our economy has suffered. and just the threat of defaulting or not paying our bills has hurt consumer confidence. consumer confidence is -- is --

it's whether consumers are ready to go out and buy that car, buy that home, go on that vacation. after the attack on our country on september the 11th, consumer confidence dropped by about 8.8%. i could go over other moments in history, but the debt ceiling debate today is about twice as damaging to consumer confidence than the 9/11 attack. so we are hurting our country. we are hurting our economy. we are wasting taxpayer dollars. we all talk about dealing with the debt. we're talking about paying our bills, when we talk about raising the debt ceiling. these debt -- this -- this -- this money has already been incurred. we're just paying our bills. butter the government shutdown, we've wasted over $2 billion taxpayer money as a result of the shutdown.

and as the presiding officer knows, this region -- maryland, virginia, the district -- we have over 300,000 federal workers who are in furlough of the 800,000 that are furloughed in this country. that has a direct impact on families as well as our economy. these federal workers are not buying and their local shops, they're not eating in the local restaurants. i was -- stopped for a sandwich over the last weekend and went into a store, i said, how are things going, a restaurant to get a sand wism th sandwich, thr owner said terrible. the social security employees aren't here. i can't keep my business over without their business. so we've seen the direct impact. and i've tried to put faces on the numbers because we could talk about the statistics and the numbers. when you talk about the individual people that we hear

from, i know the presiding officer has gotten calls from his constituents in virginia, the same stories. we had a -- we brought in over a week ago a -- amny fritz who works at noaa. she's a federal worker who was furloughed. she tracks weather conditions, a pretty important position that she does. she was telling the hardship to her family. well, th the "baltimore sun" reported they'd at noaa, it's not -- that at noaa, it's not just the federal workers, it's the contract workers that are suffering. and they pointed out an example of tiffany house, a person who lives in hyattsville, maryland. she's a single mom. she's a contract employee at noaa who has been laid off, furloughed, as a result of the government shutdown. so it's more than just 800,000 federal workers because the contract workers who have been laid off as a result. and she said, even though we are furloughed, we're not getting paid, the bills keep coming.

there are a lot of families that live paycheck to paycheck. 11 days into this government shutdown. families are wondering what they're going to do in paying their billsmen bills. some talked about keith tate from hyattsville. he works for f.f.a. source in hyattsville, maryland. almost 30% of their contract employees -- 92 in total number -- have been laid o. now, he was starting to -- have been laid off. now, he was starting to work on october 1, his lock. he was looking forward to it. he went to work on october 1 but thethen got furloughed as a rest of the government shutdown. and the effect goes well beyond just individual people that you would expect. i have a friend who -- hue system, who started heavy seas brewery in baltimore. it's one of these microbreweries. he's doing a great job, hiring people. now, how does he get snect affe?

you may, say, well, he sells beers. it's worse than that. the alcohol, tobacco and trade bureau, the employees there have been furloughed that have to approve new labels or recipes. microbreweries need to have a fresh product. they're being hurt all over the nation as a result of this agency not being in business. so, mr. president, this -- this -- this shutdown is hurting our economy, hurting our count country, hurting individuals, hurting taxpayers, hurting businesses. we can do real -- we can do much better than that. in my state of maryland, 10% of our work force works for the federal government. the agencies are important to the work, as i pointed out. previously, harbor point, which is one of the most important

economic development in downtown baltimore, it's a recrosite, which means it means the acceptance of e.p.a. in order to move forward with economic development of well, the people at e.p.a. who would approve this project have been furloughed. this economic project now is on hold. and i -- i could mention other examples of -- of agencies that are critically important to move forward. and i could also talk about a lot more private employment. we talked about the -- it's not just government employment. it's private employment. convergence technology consultant locating in glenn bernie, maryland, does work for the department of defense. 26 of his 50 employees have been laid over. k.w. employees does cybersecurity work. one-third of their 700 employees have been furloughed. the list goes on and on and on, the damage being caused by the government shutdown. so -- so my message is pretty

simple. this -- we've got to make sure that government is open. we've got to make sure that we open government, we pay our bills. and i understand understand thad like to have an agreement on a budget. i would like to have an agreement on a budget. for six months we've been trying to go to conference. the senate passed a budget, the house passed a budget. they're different. they're differentmen different. the senate budget, one that i supported, the presiding officer supported, would -- would provide more resources into job growth by investing in infrastructure, by investing in education, by investing in research. and, yes, we do provide more revenues by closing tax loopholes. we also start to rein in government spending, continue to do that. the house-passed budget has less of those investments, doesn't close up the loopholes in our tax code, and that's what we've

got to negotiate, between democrats and republicans. that's what we need to do. but the first order of business is to to have open government, pay our bills and then let's sit down and negotiate. we -- we can't wait. we've got to have government open. i -- i've quoted before from the "baltimore sun," their analogy of -- of negotiations. it's difficult when you haven't really put -- when this is all one-sided, and the -- the -- some papers said -- i quote -- "so when speaker boehner lashes out at president obama for failing to negotiate, one has to ask, what is this thing he describes as negotiations? house republicans are not merely leveraging their political position, some dryly claim. they're threatening to do grievous harm to the global economy and the american public. the gun isn't raised to mr. obama's head or the senate's. the democrats have no particular stake in passing a continuing resolution or raising debt

ceiling -- raising the debt ceiling other than keeping public order and doing what any reasonable person expects congress to do. no, the gun is raised at the nation as a whole. that's why descriptions like ransom and hostage are not mere words, they're as close as the english language gets to accurately describing the g.o.p. strategy." so our message is clear to speaker boehner -- put down the gunmengun. put it down. open government. allow us to pay our bills. and, yes, we want to sit down and work out our differences. let the democratic process proceed. open government, pay our bills, and let's negotiate a fair agreement. with that, mr. president, i would suggest the absence of a quorum. the presiding officer: the clerk will call the roll. quorum call:

quorum call: the presiding officer: the senator from louisiana.

ms. landrieu: thank you, mr. president. i suggest we tkeus pwers with the quorum call -- disperse with the quorum call. the presiding officer: without objection. ms. landrieu: i have one unanimous consent request for committees to meet during today's session of the senate. it's been approved by the majority and minority leaders. i ask unanimous consent that this request be agreed to and be printed in the record. the presiding officer: without objection, so ordered. ms. landrieu: thank you, mr. president. i'd like to speak for about ten minutes. i understand there may be other senators coming to the floor, and wanted to just express my concerns over a few issues that are really important to the people of louisiana. i understand that the meeting with the president and the republicans in the senate, our friends, has just concluded. i'm hoping that there will be some positive, positive steps forward from that meeting so that we can open this government, remove the threat of an economic collapse, and get to the bargaining table where we've been trying to get to literally

for six months. we voted 21 times in the senate to get to the negotiating table in the budget conference, which is the first starting point to agree on numbers and revenues and spending limits. and then, of course, as an appropriator -- i would know this as chair of the appropriations committee -- the next step in regular order is for each individual committee to then negotiate with our republican counterparts about how we allocate the money given to us through that budget process. none of that has been able to happen, mr. president. none. not because democrats have been unwilling to go to the negotiating table, but because some friends on the other side have taken hostage innocents: federal employees, the economy generally, and demanded things that are way beyond their

ability to use their political leverage. and so instead of using it correctly, they have held innocents hostage. and it's very, very troubling and, i think, very wrong. and hopefully we're going to find a way forward. but i wanted to spend my time this afternoon talking about a couple of things that the people i'm hearing about from louisiana, like, could you all get back to work because we have some serious problems that need to be solved. and one of them, mr. president -- maybe your state is being affected by this because you have a coastal area, as we do -- is fixing this very broken flood insurance system. it's referred to at home in our state as biggert waters named after the two members of congress that led this, quote, reform effort. maxine waters has subsequently completely disassociated herself with the legislation and said that, you know, it wasn't the right thing to do.

she has made several public statements. she has urged herself as the leader in the house with republicans and democrats to get this fixed. i can tell you, the people of louisiana, this is our number-one problem and challenge right now, because the federal government a year and a half ago passed a law that was supposed to cure something, but the cure is worse than the disease. the cure was worse than the disease. the disease was, is that we had a flood insurance program that had spent more money than it had taken in. and, yes, premiums were probably too low to sustain the program. but it was giving people at least some option and hope when they had a flood to get some of their equity in their home protected and recovered. this bill came along, never debated on the senate floor, stuck in a conference committee report, and now it's being implemented. and, mr. president, it is a disaster.

we have 400,000 flood insurance policies in louisiana texas has 700,000. florida has over two million. pennsylvania has over 75,000. virginia probably has close to 40,000 to 50,000. i don't have all of my list in front of me. and the problem is that the law that passed had stated one goal, to make the program sustainable. but it left out the second, or the equally important aspect: to make it affordable. so you can sustain a program all day long. but if nobody can afford to be in it, a, how long will it sustain itself? not long at all. and, b, you're hurting the people that you're trying to help the most. so a group of us have been working on fixing this now for quite some time. and these new regulations went into effect october 1. so we're now 11 or 12 days -- i

forget the date -- but we're somewhere past the first of october. these new rates have gone in. some people are seeing rates quadrupling or tenfold going up from $300 a year to $3,000 a year. or in some cases we've heard of $1,500 to $30,000. i'm not exaggerating, not making this up. this is all in the record. we have a way to fix it. and the good news i want to say on the floor today is that we have 24 senators, republicans and democrats, come together this week and send a "dear colleague" lear to -- letter to our leadership, to the republican and house leadership to say we're very close to a compromise that will do two things. it will give us time to get the aformat -- afford ability study to be done actually done. time to allow fema to set rates

that would keep the program functioning but not jeopardize people's equity in their home. it would of course remove the automatic trigger provision that has been very detrimental, which basically says your rates can stay low but the minute you sell your house or the minute you put your house for sale whatever grandfathered rate you had is gone and you don't go to 25% a year. you go up to where you should be which sometimes that is moving from $1,000 a year to $30,000 a year. it makes your house worthless and that is what is happening to thousands of people. they have lost equity in their home. it's one of many problems this congress has to face or fix. we can't fix any of them if we can't get back to work. and if we can't get the officials back to work that have been working at fema that have been laid off. one point i want to make today, and if i exceed my time, i don't

see anyone else, i'll ask for a few extra minutes. let's find a way to negotiate and i hope part of that negotiation will be a fix to biggert-waters. i want to thank senator menendez from new jersey, senator wicker of mississippi. senator isakson. i want to thank the realtors and the bankers because they realized we have made a mistake, that the law that we passed was not a good one. sometimes that happens. and so we've got to fix it. maybe, you know -- you don't have to fix maybe the whole part of it but we're working on some pieces that must be amended so that it accomplishes the goal of having a program that the taxpayers do not have to pick up a big tab every year but that allows real estate markets to function, peep to be able to re

-- people to be able to retain equity in their home and pay their fair share. also encourage smarting growth and development. part of the problem with biggert-waters, the old bill, the bill we're trying to fix didn't even recognize levees. i don't know if you have a lot of levees in virginia but we have to have them in louisiana because we are below sea level and we've been that way for 300 years. we moved there below sea level. we had to be there to create the port of new orleans. thomas jefferson leveraged the whole federal treasury to buy us for, i think, three cents an acre, if i remember correctly. the bulk of 19 states. it was the greatest real estate purchase in the history of our country. alaska may argue, but we think the louisiana territory is equally as value if not more, and our state is proud to carry that name. people understand the history of this.

so why would thomas jefferson leverage the whole treasury of the united states to buy something that wasn't worthwhile? of course it's worthwhile. it was worthwhile then. it is worthwhile now. people live there because we run the biggest port system in the world and we need to continue to live there with all the industries, oil and gas, fisheries, et cetera. this biggert-waters bill undermines our region's ability to function. and we produce 17% of the g.d.p. for the country. so this is not a small parochial issue. so the southern states -- texas, louisiana, mississippi, alabama, et cetera. but it also affects interior states. you saw what's happened in colorado. you've seen what happened with the east coast states, with new jersey, new york, massachusetts, et cetera. so let's get to the negotiating table. let's work together as we know that we can. and let's put on the top of that agenda a potential fix for

biggert-waters. again, i thank my colleagues for working so cordially together even in this difficult time. let me move to another subject for a minute and put into the record in the event that my colleagues -- do i have to ask for an additional three minutes? the presiding officer: without objection. ms. landrieu: thank you. let me put into the record, in the event that my colleagues did not, a letter that i received, and i think all the members received a copy of a letter that went to senator reid, senator mcconnell, speaker boehner and representative pelosi from the governors association that came yesterday. governor mary phalan and governor john hicken looper signed the letter. it says the governors urge congress and the administration to quickly reopen the federal government. the fiscal health of states is inextricably linked to the fiscal stability of the federal government. and while state economies have improved, a failure by our national government to secure a

solution to the current budget issue undermines our states' recovers and endangers the u.s. economy. it goes on to say that states have so far, now ten days or so into the shutdown managed to avoid closing or suspending most programs and services by using carry-over funds, but they say in some cases by using states spending to fill in missing federal dollars. however, states are not in a position to be the bank for the federal government. and as a former governor, of course you understand this, i was a former treasurer, i most certainly understand that the budget of louisiana is about, almost 70% federal funding. so when the federal government cuts that funding off, it starts to really affect the way states and the 300-plus cities in my state operate, and our private-sector partners that work with us to provide state

levels and community services and nonprofits like catholic charities, who's running some of our low-income housing, our justice programs for, in some of our neighborhoods and communities. so this shutdown, it's just bad. it's bad all around. it should not have happened. and we need to get this government open and operating not only to help our states and their economic recovery plans, to start focusing on fixing things we need to fix like biggert-waters and repealing that old insurance reform bill and find a better way forward. i might also want to mention just two other things quickly. what is also happening in our state today, is that permitting in the gulf of mexico for offshore oil and gas drilling, mr. president, is now shut down. you know, right at the time when america is about to overtake russia as the largest domestic

producer of gas and oil, right when we're about to take first place, the republicans tea party has shut the government down and shut down permitting the golf. we've been fighting ever since the deepwater horizon to get that back up and going. now we find it's shut down again. the people i represent can't take another shutdown of permitting. we have levees to build. we have a big problem in our river parishes we call them along lake pontchartrain. we have organza, pour homma, our whole region and the whole country because that is sort of like the little houston if you will. homma is like little houston. we don't have all the corporate structures there, but we have all the know-how and goods and services and the providers and the boats and the planes and the ships and the helicopters.

they might have the gleaming office towers in houston, but we have a lot of hard workers there in homma. the levee that protects them and their homes is now basically the plans for its shutdown along with this tea party shutdown. it is time to open our government, get back to work, solve real problems and negotiate in good faith without taking innocents hostage. and too many innocents, whether it's children with cancer, whether it's business people that have put everything on the line for their business, and at no fault of their own have no customers coming in the front door, can't pay their note and the banks aren't going to wait until we get our act together. i thank you, mr. president, wanted to mention this. and in one minute, if i could, just take one more minute to speak on behalf of a people that don't have a senator here, and that is the district of columbia. the district of columbia is not a -- technically not a part of

the federal government. they're not an agency of the federal government. they're not a department of the federal government. they are the district where the federal government resides and they, contrary to popular belief, raise most of their money through their own tax revenue generated about 75% local. 25% of the budget of the district of columbia, which is about 750,000 people -- a pretty big city as cities go -- come from the people that live here. and they have been caught up as if they were an agency of the federal government. and on their behalf, let me just argue to my colleagues, or suggest that that's a group of innocents, a city -- you know, baltimore's budget is not shut down, richmond's budget is not shut down, the new orleans budget is not shut down, chicago's budget is not shut down, new york's budget is not shut down, san francisco's

budget is not shut down. but d.c. government is shut down because of this threat. they've gotten caught up. they should be let go, and we can then negotiate on all other things. so i think the president understands this. i know that majority leader reid understands this. i'm hoping that majority -- minority leader mitch mcconnell will give his support so that this can be done in a bipartisan way, recognizing this is the nation's capital. not asking for them for any special preference of course, just allowing them to use their own money and operate their own city while we try to figure out how to get the rest of the government open and operating. and i hope that we can do that today. we've been working across the lines. i want to thank congresswoman eleanor holmes norton for her leadership on this. but, you know, they don't have senators so a few of us have to

stand up and speak for the people of the district. and i'm happy to try to do that on occasion when -- when i, of course, believe strongly in what they're asking for. so i thank the president, and i yield the floor. i suggest the absence of a quorum. the presiding officer: the clerk will call the roll. quorum call:

a senator: mr. president? the presiding officer: the senator from vermont. mr. sanders: i ask that the quorum call be vitiated and i ask unanimous consent to speak for up to 20 minutesment. the presiding officer: without objection, the quorum call is suspended. and without objection, 20 minutes is allowed. mr. sanders: mr. president, it is no secret to anybody that the meramerican people are frustratd and they are disgusted with what is going on in washington. you may have seen the "onion magazine," the satirical

magazine running a story which says that -- that at a time when 5% of the american people approve of what's going on in congress, the onion reported psychiatrists deeply worried about the mental health of 5% of the american people. in other words, all over this country, regardless of political persuasions, people literally cannot understand what's going on here. and they have every reason to be outraged and frustrated, because so many people today are being hurt. we can disagree about the affordable care act. we as a nation can disagree about how you address social security, med care o medicare, , global warming or any other issue out there. but what should not be happening is that this governmen governmee american people should not be held hostage by an extreme right

wing of the republican party who says, "well, yeah, we lost the election by 5 million votes, we lost two seats in the senate, we lost seats in the house, but nonetheless, unless we get the agenda that we campaigned on and that we lost, we're going to shut down the federal governme government, punish millions of federal employees and tens of millions of taxpayers who fade for federal services and for the first time in the history of the united states of america, we are not going to pay our bills and perhaps thrust the american financial system and the world's financial system into a horrendous recession. what the american people are saying over and over again, regardless of political persuasion, yes, we can disagree on issues; no, you cannot bring the united states government to a halt and default on our

payment because you disagree on certain legislation. now, interestingly enough, mr. president, a couple of days ago i -- i gather that we had to bring the government to a halt and that we had to not pay our bills and bring the world's financial system into crisis because of the horrors of obamacare, the affordable care act. that was the reason. well, two days of coming on, and guess what? it's not the affordable care act. that is not any longer being discussed. today i gather -- i haven't seen the news in the last 15 minute minutes -- but the last that i heard, the reason that we are shutting down the government and threatening not to pay our bills is that we are spending too much money and the deficit is to high. i gather that is the latest reason. clearly a deficit of $700

billion and a debt of $16.7 trillion is too much. but let's make a couple of points about that issue. first, in the last three years, we have cut the deficit in half. a few years ago, it was $1.4 trillion. today it is $700 billion. that is not an insignificant effort. second and perhaps most importantly, we have got to understand how we have got to where we are in terms of the debt and in the deficit. mr. president, do we have a large committe deficit because e spending too much on social security? well, actually not, because social security is independently funded through the payroll tax and hasn't added one nickel to the deficit. so it's not social security. you could talk about medicare and medicaid in a moment, but

the reason we have seen a spike in the deficit in recent years has to do with the fact that manufacture my deficit hawk republican friends, and some democrats, voted for the war in iraq and afghanistan. but they forgot to pay for that war. just a slip, you know, they just forgot about it. and those wars are going to cost between $3 trillion and $6 trillion. so i want everyone to remember, great deficit hawks who are busy trying to cut every program that working families in this country need, forgot to pay for wars in iraq and afghanistan that will cost between $3 trillion and $6 trillion. second issue is our great deficit hawks had no problem during the bush era. of giving huge tax breaks to the wealthiest people in this country. and thirdly, of course, as a result of deregulation and the greed and recklessness and illegal behavior on wall street,

wall street brought us to a financial collapse and a recession with the result tha that -- that revenue substantially declined. now, i raise those issues giving a little bit of history about how we got into the deficit today, because now i guess congressman ryan and others have decided that the reason we shut down the government is not because of obamacare, it is because there is too much spending. and what that translates into is their desire to cut social security, to cut medicare, to cut medicaid and to cut other vitally important programs for the middle class and working families of this country. but, mr. president, before we talk about the pain that would be caused by making saf am cuts in social security, medicare and medicaid, it's important to put this discussion in a broader context f. you go out to the --

context. if you go out to the american people, i suspect the people in virginia and the people in vermont and the people all over this country, and if you look at virtually every single poll that has been done in recent years asking the american people what they consider to be the most important issues facing them, do you know what they say? they say the deficit is important. but what's much more important is the issue of high unemployment and the economy in general. that is what every single poll shows. and the american people are right. deficit is important. what is even more important is addressing the reality that 14 14% -- almost 14% of our work force, if you count those people who have given up looking for work and who are working part time, almost 14% of our work force today is unemployed. and what the american people are saying to congress -- create

jobs, deal with unemployment. mr. president, the other issue out there that all across this country people are deeply worried about is that most of the new jobs that are being created -- and this has been the case for a number of years no now -- that most of the new jobs being created are part-time, low-wage jobs. how is somebody supposed to survive working for $10 an hour and getting 25 hours a week of work? you can't do it. and we're seeing more and more of those types of jobs in the economy. and, by the way, jobs that provide little or no benefits. and what the american people are saying is raise the minimum wage. i can't remember what the last poll was, but surely more than 70% of the american people have said a minimum wage of $7.25 an