legislation. 62% of the spending is now -- and last year, it'll probably be higher than this moment we're in. 62% of the spending was mandatory spending. it was spending that was put in place by congresses beginning in the 1930's through the health care bill. that's mostly mandatory spending. the current congress didn't get to vote on the health care bill, but more importantly, most of the current congress wasn't alive when the -- when the social security act passed. many of the members of this -- of the congress and even some of the members of the senate weren't alive when medicare passed. this is the time to look at -- for this congress to look at those pieces of legislation and say, what do we need to adjust them to the future needs of the country, what do we need to

adjust them to the current and future demographic realities of society? people live longer, people need these services longer; what do we do to make this work in a way that these programs can last? these are not programs put in place by this congress. these are not bills incurred by this congress. these are bills, in fact, that this congress and this president can decide, we're going to look at these programs and be sure they last and look at these programs and be sure they can be paid for, and that's exactly the kind of discussion we should be having when we ask the american people, through their congress, to extend the line of credit. the idea that we won't negotiate on -- on the debt ceiling or we won't negotiate on how to spend the money, if we don't negotiate on how to spend the money by

bringing the appropriations bills to the floor, how are we supposed to negotiate and set priorities and let democracy work? i don't like democracy by cris crisis. and whatever we do in the next few weeks or months that it takes to finish out the year we've already started, what we should all do is commit ourselves for the year that begins next october 1 to be prepared for that like the congress until just six or seven years ago generally was prepared at our near that date. when the congress -- when there was a government shutdown in 1995, six of the appropriations bills had been passed, signed into law and all those parts of the government were working after a debate that provided funding. and so i would just say, madam president, as i conclude, that we need to move away from management by crisis but we also need to understand that if we don't do the work the regular way, there's no other place to take a stand, there's no other

place to have this debate. the president's sense that you could get this at some other point -- there is no other point if the congress and the president aren't doing their j job. and i would just say we should do our job, we should do it and the -- in a way that people can see, we should do it in the -- the small bites that the budget process is set up to allow us to look at and debate. we haven't done that over the last 12 months. we're going to have -- we've started this year in about the worst possible way. hopefully we'll get through this and then resolve to do the work the right way for the -- for what begins a year from now. but at this moment, the president thinking that we can just go ahead and move forward without negotiating i think is a -- is a wrong decision on the president's part. and i would yield the floor.

the presiding officer: under the previous order, the senate stands adjourned until 11:00 stands adjourned until 11:00

before first lady she taught at the clark institute for the deaf. she helped raise awareness about educating the deaf and the needs of the disabled. watch our show about grace cool cool average. s it was the primary residence of the hoover and significant as it relates to hoover she was the one who designed it. she a strong grasp of design and how she wanted the house to look even though she was not an architect or lucky to have a lot of original drawings, documents, an corp. response relating to the designs and construction of how she wanted the house to look. it came from her travel also from her travels in north africa when she traveled with herbert

hoover. it's a great legacy. she descriened the house. she greated it. it was inspired by her ideas and she had close involvement in all aspects of the house's creation. meet first lady hoover live at 9:00 eastern on c-span, c-span radio, and c-span.org. this sunday part two of the conversation with josh. start off by giving us what you saw with the press, media, and that world. how did you view this? >> usually with some hostility, which is just the natural state of affairs between the white house and the press corp. because the -- because that's just the nature of what the press needs to do. they need to try to catch the white house out on whatever is going on.

more with bush administration chief of staff josh bolton sunday night at 8:00 on c-span's queue and -- q & a. an attorney accused of filing fraudulent social security benefits claim refused to testify on monday at the senate homeland security meeting. erick conn is accused of hiring doctors to cliewting with the kentucky judge. twoens with withs who blank black processed said they experienced retaliation. the administrative judge involved with the theme failed to testify despite being called to testify. this portion of the hearing runs about an hour and twenty minutes. i would like to invite our third panel of witnesses to the within table for this evening's hearing. i'll just briefly introduce each of you.

erick conn. thank you for joining us. judge david dorrty. a former administrative law judge with the u.s. social security administration. and judge charlie andrews, an administrative law judge at the u.s. social security administration appearing in his personal capacity. judge dorrty, are you in the room. i was told by our staff he left the room two hours ago, and has not returned. and our practice in investigative hearings is to

draft [inaudible] a subpoena has been served to judge daugherty. we will promptly served and we'll be in consultation to decide no further steps to take. having that said, i ask our witnesses, mr. conn, and judge andrews to stand. i ask you to raise your right hand. gentleman, you swear the testimony you give before the

committee will be the truth, the whole truth, and nothing but the truth. so help you god. thank you. mr. conn, do you have any opening remarks you would like to give, please? all right. do you have any corrections to the statement of facts laid out in dr. coburn's opening statement or the facts included in the staff report released by the committee today? [inaudible] i -- my lawyer sent letter october 7th explaining the reasons i'm not going to testify today and pursuant to that letter, i respectfully served my constitutional right not to testify here today, sir. >> is it your intelligence --

let me follow up. is it your intention to assert your fifth amendment right any question that might be directed to you by the committee today? >> it is, sir. given the fact that you intend to assert a fifth amendment right against self-incrimination of all questions asked by you of the committee, you are excused. >> thank you, sir. >> judge andrews, you're recognized. welcome, please proceed with your statement. >> chairman carper and ranking member coburn. i wish to state at the outset i'm here in a personal and not a official capacity.

the views expressed in my testimony are mine, expressed in my personal capacity as a private citizen. this testimony, i do not present the representative the view of the social security administration or the united states government. i'm not acting as an agent or representative of the social security administration or the united states government in this activity. there is no express or implied endorsement of my views or activities. either by the social security administration or the united states government. i was asked to make that position clear to you before i testify. >> thank you. please proceed. >> i have heard a lot of full-time here today about my office. i would like to start by explaining a little bit how we changed our processes of

handling cases. we recently, by we, the social security administration recently adopted an electronic business process to try and create a unified system for handling cases. as they came up from social security district offices. huntington handles appeals from the huntington, west virginia, pike ville, kentucky; and ashland kentucky. most of our work is done with kentucky cases. there was some discussion about scheduling mr. conn's cases and why we did it the way we did. after mr. conn's practice grew to the point it took up quite a bit of our dockets, it became

hard to schedule. his cases, he was a so low practitioner so we could only schedule the cases he was involved. and it started to age his cases more than cases assigned to other lawyers that other lawyers represented people. so what we decided to do, and i sent this to my regional office and got permission to do it. >> where is your regional office? >> in philadelphia, sir. >> thank you. >> at that time, the judge was the regional chief judge. he later became the national chief judge and still with the agency, i believe, as general counsel in boston. northerlily, what we would do is when we saw that a judge had a case -- the docket of cases scheduled,

we would bring from a case what is called worked up cases. they were put in to a -- the cases that had been exhibittized. they were put in to proper order, and we would pull the oldest from the list. that list was generated from master docket pulling the oldest cases. what we found was by assigning mr. conn's cases as they came in rotation to every judge, it evened thissous. there was concern expressed to me that mr. conn would be available for certain weeks and not available at others. and toiflt remove the possibility of him trying to be available when certain judges were available and not when others. i felt if we assigned the same

amount to everybody and kept them with everybody, everyone would have about the same number of his cases. and that was approved and that's what we did. now when we would schedule cases particularly for our berg doblghts, we look at the age of the cases, and in some weeks that i was there, mr. conn would have two and a half, three days of cases, which is roughly what his percentage of cases down there would be. sometimes i would go the entire week and he wouldn't have a case down there. that is, as it varies, the age of the other cases we always try to do the older cases first. now regards to on the records,

when we were -- when the commissioner set forth a series of plans to try to reduce our backlog, one of them was to have judges review cases that were unpolled, in other words not made ready for hearing. raw cases that came up. the pages not be in order, the exhibits may not be in chronological order. to review those case and see if there were any that could be done on the record with the view to getting the case to the climate as soon as we can. you've heard a lot about pressure, some of you have talked about the pressure that we're under. i would ask you to consider this, the administrative law judges are the only ones that see the claimants on a regular

basis. we see how they are peopling. we see how it affects them. for me personally, the major pressure was to try to get that case done so that whether it's allowance or denial they would get a decision. part of the process was on reviewing for on the records. this started back when we were still mainly a paper file system. and in conformity with that -- i keep forgetting the word. process, i told all of the judges in the office that if any of them felt they had the time to go ahead and go to "the master" docket the paper case in

the master docket that had not been pulled yet, they could review cases for on the record. judge daugherty was the one who ask -- did this. that's how that process started. one of the things that as the hearing office chief administrative law judge is that i carry the same workload as every other judge in the office. and so i had a full docket of my own cases to handle also. now senator coburn brought up some things and we talked about some things about what has happened shortly after the

newspaper article was published. i stepped down as the chief judge. so i have no idea or no knowledge of what management had done after that time. i was not included in that information. but mr. conn was one of three or four attorneys that worked with judge daugherty getting files to him and getting new evidence put in the files for him to review. i know, that many of the investigation, which is very thorough, has primarily focused on that. but there were other attorneys who were submitting on the record decisions to judge daugherty also besides

mr. conn. now the details of how mr. conn filled out the paperwork -- i had no idea until i read your report that you graciously furnished me a couple of days ago. as far as the reassigning of cases was concerned, that was discussed. before we went to the electronic system this we have now, trok files and electronic case control, we had started what has been referred to as cpms, which is essentially an electronic control system for all of our files as they move through the office. cpms has gone through several changes to it. in the beginning, i could tell

that a case file had been assigned or reassigned but i could not tell by whom. i could tell that cases moved from one section to another one stay us another. i couldn't tell who made the changes. when it was brought to my attention by mr. hall that judge daugherty -- or someone -- had moved cases to judge daugherty that were originally assigned to them. i went to judge daugherty and i asked him if he had been reassigning cases. he said that he had. and i said -- asked him, if you know these were already assigned. that was the program that we had set up. they would be assigned to us from mr. conn and not reassigned. he said, well, i didn't know.

so i sent out another memo, the e-mail to the office staff. i believe that's one of them in the report. i said, look, don't reassign the cases. i emphasized to judge daugherty. i said, this has to be -- when they're assigned to a judge, that's it. he said all right, fine, i understand. quite a bit later, again, judge g.i. tlo came to me. and said they had found more. at this point i went to judge daugherty and asked. he said i didn't think they above -- belonged to anybody. in the latest of cpms, i believe they moved where they put that in the file. he said i didn't see it. i said, all right, fine, we'll

take care of this. i don't want you to reassign anything. if you have one that you're going review on the record, go to the supervisor, have the supervisor look at it, they will reassign it if it's appropriate. he agreed. then right before the story in the "the wall street journal," the judge came to me and said he's still doing it. at that time, i asked him for a list, looked at it, and i sent -- talked to judge daugherty and he said oops, i must have done this. those were the step i took. reminding everybody not to reassign it specifically telling judge daugherty not to reassign cases. but the main purpose from -- >> could i ask you to wrap it up

in two minutes so we can begin the questions. >> okay. the main reason i wanted to do that was to keep the age of the cases between judge -- erick conn's large docket and the cases represented by other individuals pretty much own the same level so we wouldn't age any cases. >> thank you. let me -- start off by -- thank you for coming. thank you for testifying. i want to ask you; are you married? >> yes, sir. >> do you have any children? >> yes, sir. >> daughters? >> yes. >> i think most of us have children. i think except for maybe, for me, we have daughters. when a guy -- i suspect most of the people in the room is to treat other people the way we want to be

treated. as i understand it, you're the chief judge. you are a chief judge. >> yes, sir. >> person in charge. a leader of the operation in huntington, and we've listened to the first panel of witnesses talk about the way they were treated for a number of years by those in charge, those in a position to do something about it. and i just want to ask you how would you feel if your wife or daughter were treated that way by their employer at their place of work? >> i would feel badly. >> would you do anything about it? >> i would find out if there are two sides to have the story. >> what is the motivation to risk a lie to come here and really involved agree to cooperate with the inspector generals, what is their motivation? >> on the --

>> how do your square your behavior with treating other people? >> very large way on that. >> i'm sorry? >> i said i failed in a very large way on that. i don't agree with the statements made by miss carver about the retaliation. as i said, i don't know what's been going on since 2011, but before particularly the information she gave about -- i would respectfully request you perhaps get her side of that story. >> in delaware, we have our social security disability operations headquartered in dover, our state capitol. it's interesting when you look at the number of cases across

the country that are approved or not, the number seems to run around 50% maybe a little bit over 50% nationwide. in delaware, we have a couple of judges whose approval of cases is actually below 50%. below 40%. maybe as low as 30 or 25%, and there has been some training in the past year or so for our administrative law judges to make sure that they're aware of all of the facts they ought to be aware of in making these determinations. i'm told the training they have gone through might ultimately be used as a model for some other part of the country. but i come from a state where it's not uncommon for as few as one out of four cases to be approved. it boggles my mind when i hear

of a administrative law judge who is currently ignored -- he was not here. thought he saw it in the audience but apparently not. for him to approve over 99% of the cases that come before him, over 99 percent, the line share apparently from one liar. i think the person in charge overseeing the operation where it occurred was you. and what did you do about it? >> under the administrative procedure act, an administrative law judge has qualified judicial independence, and in the 27 years i've been in administrative law judge, i can honestly say that no one has ever come to me either from my

agency or even a member of congress either senate or the house of representatives and ask me to decide a case a certain way. i think that's an important concept. as i mentioned to one of your staff, as you were representing a family member and you walked to the room and sat down and a judge walks in and you had found out that someone had told him you're allowing too many cases how would you feel about the hearing you're going to have what i have done and did with judge daugherty on one end of the spectrum and another judge on the very low end of the spectrum, i said, look, i'm a manager for social security. i'm not going tell you how to

decide your cases. if you look and see two standard deviations above the norm or below the norm, maybe it's time you take a step back, take a look at what you're doing, and see if you want to change it. at which point judge daugherty turns to me and said, chuck, i love you like a brother and i'm going to do this because i think it's what i should do. that's about as far as i thought i could go -- thank you. let me interrupt you for a moment. staff has given me an exhibit, i think it's number -- exhibit number 32, and it's called message o. o. 6, exhibit 32, page one of 9. can someone help again, exhibit

32, page one of nine. let me know when you have it, please. >> vial to read to your book. exhibit 32, page one of nine. from judge -- [inaudible] >> that's correct. i'm looking at -- an e-mail chain. it looks like it began at the bottom of the page. it seems to begin about 2 p.m. on thursday may 19, it's from bill connelly. and the subject is "heard about this ?" and the below that we read u.s.

disability claim judge has trouble saying no. near perfect approval record. social security program strained. and then above that is an e-mail sent about two hours later from william -- judge -- >> that's correct. in fact, i was the one that replaced him in huntington. we knew each other. >> it's an e-mail from him to you. the subject is "heard about this? ". only three words in the message to you that says: shame on you. shame on you with an explanation point. and your response about minute later, it looks like, to the judge is what can i say? judicial independence. >> yes, sir.

for a person -- for a judge that operates, serves, not for your but you're this person's leader. and for you to say in response to the judge shame on you for you to say what can i say judicial independence -- i i can see where judicial independence is important. i think we agree on that. but not when the numbers are like this. 99.5% -- >> yes. >> of the cases that come before the judge is not hear to have been approved. many for the same lawyer and for you to say: what can i say? judicial independence. very disappointing. very disappointing. judge, let me turn dr. coburn.

>> mr. chairman, i'm flabbergasted at what we've heard. i'm not a lawyer, judge, so my deference is to you and the fact that you are one. multiple times you were noticed that judge daugherty was taking cases. he did nothing about it. he did nothing. he didn't stop it and continued. you abdicated your responsibility as chief judge. you know, i'm sitting here thinking you expect us to believe that judicial independence is the reason that judge daugherty had 99.7% approval rate? is that judicial independence or is it ?rawd if you really think it was judicial independence -- do you really think it was judicial independence? is that your belief right now?

>> my belief right now is that there is very little that management in this agency can do about a judge's decision to allow or deny a claim. that's a great point, it's one of the reasons we're having the hearing. if you are telling us you helpless, obviously the judge didn't think he would have been helpless or he would have never sent you that e-mail. and what your testimony, basically, is you were helpless to fix the system. you allowed it to run on control. you had great chances to stop this and you didn't. and i don't know your motivation. i can't question them. but the fact is the facts are the facts. and what we've heard here today is somebody wasn't minding the store. if you would go, i would like

you, exhibit 10 if you can find that, yes, sir. this is from steve -- [inaudible] basically about changing case scheduling in preston berg. in the memo you expected erick conn was form shopping. what do you mean by that? >> when i mentioned before he seemed to be available some weeks and not available others, at that time, huntington judges were on a pretty standard schedule. we do one week of hearings in huntington, spend a week in the office. it was always the same week. so he knew when judge daugherty was going to be there. when a scheduling clerk call up and say i need to schedule cases

for such and such week. he might not be available. >> you would agree we already have testimony that erick conn was form shopping by the testimony here today. you would agree with that? >> yes. >> it's a matter of fact before the committee. >> yes, sir. >> there's no doubt in your mind. >> yes, sir. >> all right. you developed two cases and you set up one for his and one up for the other. and we heard what you said in your opening statement the fact was active totally against agency policy, was it not? >> i believe that's why i asked for the deviation. >> it was against policy. >> and was there any copability on your part from what we've seen come about from what has happened in this office? i don't understand. >> you set up the system that allowed this to occur.

you knew he was form shopping. >> right. >> you ignored it once it started happening big. one he started moving cases to his own -- how did he know the cases were in there? we have developed the fact the only way he was known he was told by mr. conn the name and the social security numbers. that's the only way he could have gone to your system and rearrange and sign the cases to himself. he didn't know they were in there. they hadn't been filed and brought up to date so you would see them on a list. >> i believe there's a report sent up from the district office when they transferred an electronic case to us. does that go to the judges? >> no, it doesn't. >> no, it doesn't. the only way he could have known is have the name and social security numbers. we have numerous e-mails to you about the problem. nothing happened. i'm just asking why didn't something happen? you ultimately, as the chief

judge were responsible for this. i'm just saying sitting back listening to what you've had to say, you know, i'm obviously not a very good attorney. i'm a pretty good doctor, but i don't think you miss -- passed the smell test. your answer in term of how it happened and how it came about, that's opinion and that's not fact. i'm sorry to bore you with that. let me go to the -- my staff asked you about -- in early interviews asked you about if you knew anything about trying to video tape sara carver. >>. >> yes, sir. >> you denied knowledge of that to my staff, did you not? >> i said i couldn't recall. >> okay. you couldn't recall. it would seem to me if you're going to video tape somebody, you would have trouble not

recalling that. after the fact, you in fact, signed a statement. saying, in fact, it did happen; is that correct? >> that's correct. >> and you were involved in it. >> yes. >> you do recall that? >> yes, sir. >> and what was the purpose for that video taping? >> to see if miss carver of abusing flex place. >> and did you have any reason to believe that she was? is it abnormal for a chief judge to go after somebody that work under them in that regard when judge daugherty abused his time all the time. nobody could ever find him in his office. what was the reason for that? >> there are some things that are not public record that i cannot talk about in a public hearing. which is why i suggested you may

want -- >> social security would have been here had it not been for legal wrangling. they will be here. and so we'll get to that. as a -- as a judge, administrative law judge in the united states of america, was your action proper? in any way, shape, our form in term of trying to work with the lawyer who has nothing to do with sara and actually what i would say is a conspiracy between you and mr. conn. was there anything proper about that? >> not at all. >> was it ethical? >> no. >> okay. so when you tell us that you disagree with some of mr. carver's assertion as to the office, especially in term of miss -- is that based on fact or based on opinion?

>> that is based on discussions she had with me when i was the chief judge. >> all right. >> and she was miss carvers' supervisor. >> you heard the testimony here today about perceived, if not actual, retributions against miss carver. >> yes. >> and you discount those? >> since when i was no longer the hearing office chief judge, i don't know what the current management is doing. i was a line judge. they didn't discuss it. they couldn't discuss it. so i don't know what the basis of for their actions. >> all right. thank you. i want to jump back to where we were a moment ago. a number of people in the philadelphia regional office disagreed with your proposal when you try to change -- that's why you sought an exemption for it back to what we were talking about before. if you turn to exhibit 1e9, page

3, at the top of that page, this e-mail states your whole proposal seems to be an attempt to accommodate mr. conn. that's in the e-mail. >> i'm trying to find that. >> it's page 11, i mean, page 3, exhibit 11. >> yes, i see that. >> isn't that the case? >> no , sir, the purpose of trying to do was not to accommodate mr. conn but was to try to make sure he didn't try and get a disproportionate number of his cases before judge daugherty and say not one of the other judges who had a lower allowance rate. and to make sure that we had the ability to schedule his cases so

they wouldn't age more than cases that were represented by other representatives. >> wasn't it case that mr. conn routinely, if he got in front of a judge, or had cases assigned in front of the judge, would try to reschedule cases to get a different judge? >> i don't know about anyone else, but he didn't do that with me. >> no. i think our testimony that we took in our investigation showed he tried that technique several times so he could change what judge he was presenting in front of. are you not aware of that? >> i'm aware he would dismiss cases and refile them, yes. is that what you're speaking about, senator? >> yes. >> yes. >> he would dismiss u cases in front of a judge that wouldn't give a favorable decision so the cases would be before judge daugherty. >> they were supposed to have been reassigned to the same

judge. >> did mr. conn ever withdrawal a case before you during a hearing? >> during a hearing? >> yeah. >> i believe he has. >> all right. do you remember the numbers? >> i could estimate for you maybe two or three in a docket of three or four days. >> i will enter in to the record the number of conn's withdrawal before judge andrews totals in 200958; 2010, 34. i unanimous consent it be made a part of record. any objection? thank you. so there was significant number

of cases that withdrawal in front of you. hundred. >> one or two per docket. >> how would dockets would you typical have that mr. conn would be in? >> >> at least once a month and also had some cases in huntington. so maybe 18 times a year. >> at least. yeah so at least sometimes as many as six -- >> on a docket. if. >> yes. asked dismissal on the docket. is that the -- that not a waits of your time. >> yes or no. >> i'm going get to my point. can you tell this committee that you honestly believe that you had no inclination there was anything nefarious going on with judge daugherty and erick conn? you had no belief --

you had no suspicious there was anything going on in this process where conn would, on the record, do multiple, multiple, on the record decisions, would rotate decisions out of the registry and put them on his own docket. erick conn's, take cases from other judges that were erick conn and reassign them to himself and you had no time, had any suspicious that was anything other than judicial independence? no , sir, i am not saying that. >> all right. so my my next question is; if you're not saying that. you had to have had some suspicious that things weren't going in an ethical manner in relationship mr. conn and judge daugherty. you suspected conn of form shopping. >> yes, sir. >> to do you regret not not interceding in that? i mean, you know, there's no question.

administrative -- they have independence they don't have independence to clout the rules and violate the law. you would agree with that? grease. -- yes, sir. >> do you think you failed as a chief judge in managing chief daugherty? i thought i had done what i was able to do. as far as that is concerned. i told judge daugherty not to reassign the cases. >> but he if anyway. >> he if knead. >> regardless of what you told him. >> that's correct. so you had no administrative capabilities that you could have used outside what you used to change that situation. the totally defiant judge going directly against your order of reassigning cases, moving cases, taking cases free from other judges who had peevely decided and taken themselves changing the onset dates --

>> changing the onset dates. >> when he got the case reassigned he would send the information and the cases could go back to first denial or change the date. he would manipulate the system. >> the climate would change the onset. >> yes at the ask, judge daugherty, as we've heard here today. >> yes. >> so did you, at any time, take anything of value whatsoever from mr. conn, his employees, or associates? he gave me some dvds that -- movies burned on to recordable dvds. mr. conn also, on occasion, brought sandwiches to the office to the hearing office. >> that's the extend of any interaction of value? >> and the dvds were of minimal

value, and well within the ethics standards as far as accepting gifts. >> yeah. excuse me, senator, i don't mean -- >> okay. that's okay. i didn't let you finish. >> the food, is also, if we do get gifts of food from attorneys, which the office sometimes does, we provide make that available to the entire office or provide it to some food bank. >> yeah. you're not the only profession doing that. we were bribed with the drug companies and i didn't want to be seen as complies it or bought. i'll gone way over on my time. i'll pass it over to senator levin.

[inaudible conversations] >> a report we released today describes a number of incidents which judge daugherty improper of practices of assigning coon cases to himself and taking conn cases from other judges and assigning them top himself was reported to you as chief judge. this issue was brought to your attention by judge kemper, in 2005, and again in 2006 and 2007, two years after first brought to your attention. another judge, alerted you to the fact that the judge was assigning cases to himself and the judge brought the matter to your attention again in 2009 and 2011. miss carver and miss griffith also reported that they reported this behavior directly to you as well. are you saying of chief judge you had no pour to -- power to discipline judge

daugherty? >> hearing office chef jiewj has no power to -- >> you have a power to recommend? >> yes. >> did you? >> on that, no i did not send that to the regional office. >> how many of these cases did he actually withdrawal from you? >> none that i know of. >> he never took a case from you. >> right. but you knew that all of these other judges, there were how many alj there? >> it varied between five and eight others. >> so you get complaint after exraint after complaint you knew they were true. you told them they were -- he had to stop it how many times? at least three time. you told him he didn't stop it. in fact all he said was oops. that was the last one, yes, sir. >> yeah. oops. >> now the the last time. -- >> the guy is doing form shopping.

you are suspicious. you have the complaints from your colleagues, 2005, 2006, 2007, 2009, 2011 -- from your own staff. you're sit here and saying you didn't have power to do anything about it. you had power to make a rights and you didn't do that. >> i did in 2011, senator. >> well, after it hit the paper. >> before it hit the paper. >> just before. >> right. >> you knew there was something going on by then. >> i don't recall that. >> i think your staff recalls it. >> 2011, when something is just about ready to pop, now you decide you're going take some kind 6 action. i find this incredible. and you're invocation of the term judicial independence i find to be, frankly,

despicable. judge, i'm looking you right in the eye. i have judges in my family, i know what judicial independence is. you cannot -- you cannot say that somebody engaged as this lawyer was 99.9 of his cases one way after stealing cases from other dockets and you knew about it and then you invoke -- or you did invoke as an excuse judicial independence. you know, as a lawyer and as a nephew of a federal judge and cousin of another federal judge, i find your invocation of judicial independence to be something which, frankly, you ought to be ashamed of as a

lawyer. it has nothing to do with jew dicialt independence. judicial independence. it's whether or not you abdicated in that region to do something about it has nothing to do with jew an abdication on your part. it can't have any other name from my view. e-mails you didn't stop the practice. nor did you bring it to your administrative agencies and regions somebody who would do something about it. and here is what you did. instead of acting to stamp out this activity, these misdeeds that are going on under your nose.

2001 craig hall, your office supervisor sent you a memo. it's exhibit 55, judge, if you want to look tat. -- at it. your supervisor sent you a memo noticed judge daugherty had missed three schedules. if you take a look at exhibit 55. yes, sir. >> may 10th, 2001. he missed flee -- three hearings yet later took credit of having worked the hours. in 2002, you're alerted by judge kemper that judge daugherty appeared to be signing in each morning, then immediately leaving the office for hours at

the time. that's the next expect -- exhibit there, exhibit 56. here is a what the judge tells you. when i signed in today i noticed the judge had signed in at 7:15. and directly under her name was judge daugherty's initials. reportedly showing that he had signed in at the same time. when i drove by the third avenue entrance at 7:35 i noticed his car was parked in the handicap spot. after parking my car and coming to the front entrance i noticed his car was gone. i spoke to the other judges about this. she assured me he was nowhere in site when she signed in at 7:15. at exactly 8:10 he went downstairs and informed me his car was gone. there was the usual procedure he

follows every day. when judge paris is here, usually signs in at 6:30. if no one signs in earlier about 7:15. daugherty will sign in below judge paris' name at the at the same time of 6:30. if you'll speak to judge paris he'll tell you he never sees daugherty when he comes in. daugherty is signing in coming in at the same time as these two judges that they never see him. ..

>> can you do something about cheating? is that judicial independence? can you get somebody there to do something about cheating? this is 2002. >> that is what i sent to the regional chief justice. speak that it's cheating and the chief judge? did what? b. i believe in that incident he talked to the people in the central office for national chief judge and nothing was done. >> what did they do? >> nothing. >> did you get a reply? >> now. no. >> so you wrote the chief judge. >> i wrote my regional chief judge. >> he is still in the agency. and he did nothing after being

informed that your colleague was sent by a number of your other colleagues judge daugherty was said to be cheating on his time and you never heard back? >> not anything specific. >> and general? b. he said when i spoke with judge kristof know he had forwarded to the chief judge and that was the last i heard. >> never followed up to say hey make -- k guys what's going on? so you never followed up. >> no. >> now in 2002 exhibit 59 if you take a look at that, it says -- this is from frank kristof though. that's the same judge? bes. >> you said you had never heard from him. so here is exhibit 59. november 8, 2002.

charlie, betsy wright? betsy wright collects enough off that mention judge daugherty fails to comply with time and attendance rules. if we ask you to monitor its compliance with the time and attendance rules and to deal with any failures to comply. please let me know the status is compliance with time and attendance rules. only by a site documenting incidents of unapproved absences will there be an opportunity to take action for such abuse. therefore i'm asking you to monitor the timesheet and whereabouts of judge daugherty and if he cannot be located in his private office or elsewhere in the office environment you should leave a note in his office asking him to see you as soon as he returns. you of course you keep detailed notes to document periods of absence and times you have notes. this is a pretty specific responses that? did you do that? bes are. >> so you took all these notes and kept track of judge daugherty when he was not fair was not fair and followed his patterns of cheating?

>> then you sent these notes to judge cristado? >> what i did was when he would come -- when i couldn't find him i left a note in his office. >> and then you kept track of all the times and it did then tell judge cristado and he sent him all this information? i have done what you told me to do and -- >> no concrete judge daugherty came to me and explained where he was. he would either fill in and give me a leave slip to account for the time. >> you were saying he didn't persist with the abuse of time? >> there were times that he would leave and not indicated on the sign-up sheet and i would bring that to his attention and the time sign up sheet would be corrected and/or he would give

me a leave slip. >> did he also synanon when he didn't actually sign or he actually was not there? to that pattern continued that he was putting his initials underneath some judges time for showing up but really wasn't there? did that continue? >> not that i was able to see. >> you said you're you said your chief judge and you're supposed to keep track of it. >> right. i don't get in the same time he does. >> you could check with all the judges who came and the time they signed in and then if daugherty wasn't there you could ask them to this pattern continue? you could have done that. >> yes sir. >> but you didn't? >> no sir. >> said the chief judge did not respond to your e-mail. >> that response was on a different -- >> this was an incident. according to cristado you have often mentioned that judge daugherty fails to comply with time and attendance with more

than one incident and they directed you -- they directed you what to do. caution him further and time and attendance will be due to a wall assistance and disciplinary action. it's a very important you document each instance with copies copies of leaflets as well as a summary of each incident and discussion with him. if he persists with a piece of time and attendance rules with the record he -- you will seek disciplinary action against him. did you? >> no. >> and then take a look at exhibit 59. >> i thought that was what we were on. >> i'm sorry exhibit 61.

now it's three years later. this is frank cristado. who is salary? >> she was the regional management officer. >> judge kemper complains about leave abuse by judge daugherty. i agree something needs to be done and i directed judge andrus to take care of this. he is either unwilling or unable to handle the situation. that's an understatement.

there has been some discussion. >> i am way over my time. there has been some discussion today judge about a plan by hugh and mr. conn to discredit a whistleblower mrs. carver who we heard from earlier today with the goal of having ms. carver disciplined or fired. as part of this plan you mentioned to mr. conn that ms. carver was probably not actually working that day that she worked from home. you mentioned it. you brought it up. is that true? bes. >> why did you bring that up? this is a woman who works for you.

>> yes, sir. >> now you are telling mr. conn that she probably is not actually working that day so she worked from home. in other words she is allowed to work from home on certain days that you told conn that she probably was not actually working on those days. why did you do that? try it again. we have a couple of seconds to think about why you would do that. >> senator that came up in a conversation and quite frankly i don't recall the specific reason that i had have said that. we were discussing how ms. carver always seems to be

wanting everyone else to follow all the rules. >> you were just talking about ms. carver talking to conn about your staffer. she doesn't seem to be following all the rules. it just comes out of the blue? >> we were talking about "the wall street journal" article and that she had met -- or he had related to me that i believe she had met with some people and the a reporter. >> some other people who have also blown the whistle, right? >> grover arnet, judge kemper along with her. is that right click. >> i believe that's correct. >> they met with "the wall street journal" reporter about judge daugherty and so then you told the ig that he was not

happy with sarah carver. who was not happy with sarah carver click. >> mr. conn. >> now mr. conn wasn't happy about your employees so you say hey she is supposed to be working at home on the special days when she is allowed to work at home and he said it's difficult to prove that. the only way she could be disciplindisciplin ed is if there was a video sent to her supervisor so eric conn said he'd be willing to hire a private investigator to check. is that right click. >> that's right. >> then you say you told him that sounds like an idea. and then eric conn gave you a note. is that correct click. >> that's correct. >> for sarah meese? >> she andy. >> i am sorry sandinista. did she work for you? >> at that time i wasn't the chief judge so working for me --

>> but she gave you the note? >> yes. >> that note was for you to give to sandra nice -- sandra meese and you didn't? >> yes. >> that now have a cell number of a contact and you gave it to sandra meese and she said she would call the person when she knew that sarah carver -- in other words when she was supposed to be working at home. right click. >> yes. >> how do you justify? >> i don't. it was a very stupid and wrong thing to do. i have got more questions. i have got a few more.

>> i want to understand if i can how agencies, in this case the agency could be rewarded or its employees rewarded for meeting or exceeding their goals? if senator levin here for dr. coburn or any of my colleagues authored a piece of legislation even a good piece of legislatilegislati on they don't get paid any more money and their staff probably doesn't either. my understanding is that when the huntington operation and frankly others around the country were struggling to overcome a backlog the word went out in these cases and one who

is good at moving cases apparently is judge daugherty. i am wondering if reducing the backlog and moving a lot of cases quickly -- did that make any one in the office eligible for some kind of cash bonus click? just explain to us how this works. >> there are two contracts -- actually -- with the national treasury employment union which covers the attorneys in the office. there is a contract with af ge that covers the nonattorney staff and then there is also a

procedure for management employees, which does not include it because as an administrative law judge i can get no performance awards. the awards for af ge changed about 2006 i believe when they had a new contract and that depended on a performance rating that went from pass/fail to a numerical rating and that was given by the group supervisors, the first line supervisors. a performance awards for the management team which are the group supervisors into hearing office director were all handled through the regional chief judge's office. now comes the e. office i believe two or three years in a

row got a deputy commissioners team award from the commissioner. i believe that was one of them. it may be his predecessor i'm not sure. >> what would trigger that performance award or that commissioned? >> that deputy commissioner? >> that sounds like a big deal. >> it's a plaque and a coffee mug or a plaque and a little star. that is given through the deputy commissioner's office. my office doesn't have any. >> i understand but give us some idea to come a performance award award -- a monetary performance award might be paid. just give us some ideas. a couple hundred dollars? >> something like that. two to $500. the exact amount i noticed

seeing it in a report that i reviewed and i don't remember the exact amounts. those are as i said a word by the regional chief judge's office and i do make recommendations to them. as the chief judge and made recommendations to them. >> recommendations as to who would receive a performance award. >> just who would receive it. not how much. >> who decides how much? >> the regional office management or the regional chief judge. i'm not sure sure who up there made a final decision. >> so it could be a couple hundred dollars or a couple thousand dollars in some cases? the i don't think it would be a thousand. i could be wrong but i think i remember saying records about that in your report. >> i am not a lawyer and i'm not even a doctor like dr. coburn here but i am always interested

in how financial interests motivate behavior. some friends who go off to work in law firms sometimes out of congress go off and be -- and work for these lawmakers in the courtroom and they know folks and they are able to bring in business. was judge daugherty something of a rainmaker for the huntington office? >> i see your analogy. let me try and -- >> let me just ask is there something you would say that but for his performance with all these cases more than twice the national average at 99.5% in one direction, but for that moving

that many cases that fast, is it likely that the huntington office would not have received the recognition that it did. >> if judge daugherty had only done the 500 cases a year that they have asked a judge to do compound except for two or three years. the huntington office would have met its performance goals. so, during one point in time it was necessary that those cases get out so that the goals would be met. most of the other times if he had just done the normal amount that any of us did we still would have breached our performance goals. >> but for those two or three years so when his throughput made a difference did that

trigger directly or indirectly the performance awards? >> the monetary awards? i don't believe so. >> okay. all right. senator levin i am going to in a few minutes just turn this over to you. >> i am almost done. i just wanted to see if i heard the answer to the chairman's last question. did they alj's get monetary awards? >> no, never. >> going back to this action that was taken against ms. carver. did judge daugherty know what you are doing? >> i believe judge daugherty did not. i think he was out of the office. he had left and i believe he had retired. >> okay. when my staff --

when both staffs interviewed you both psi staffs i guess and may be the chairman staff. in any offense event when the staffs talked to you you said that there was no plan to have ms. carver followed and yet that within a month or two after the decision was made to follow her. was it not? >> you talk to my staff or our staff again excuse me, are staffs in june of 2012? >> yes. >> when did you suggest that she be video to? wasn't that in early 2012? >> yes. >> so in early 2012 when you participated in this game you

told our staffs just a few months later that there was no plan to have her followed or videotaped? >> i remember talking about it and from what we were talking about i thought the question was whether i was directly personally involved in the videotaping compact and i believe what had happened was that was at the end of a very long day of going over quite a few of the things you have discussed with me. i was not sure for details and i didn't want to give the wrong information. >> did you say to our staffs quote i certainly did not get involved in sarah carvers --

[inaudible] did you say that? >> i believe i did but that was regarding the videotaping. i did not do any of that. >> it doesn't save videotaping. this is quote i certainly didn't get involved in sarah carvers -- were you involved? >> i had talked to mr. carr about doing that. >> talk to him? you suggested it. >> i don't believe i suggested it. >> just a few minutes ago you said in order to take this matter up we have to have a videotape. >> right. >> how is that for a a suggestion of? >> i see what you are getting at. the videotape, that i brought that up. the idea we were talking -- >> and he passed along the phone

number toomack. >> yes, i did. >> the truth of the matter is that not judge so blind that you you were not involved in sarah carver flex a place issue in the effort to prove that she violated the rules. you were involved, is that not true? >> yes but i thought the question was that they were talking about was videotaping itself. >> you also were asked the following question. did you ask sandy meese to call conn office and informed him of sarah carvers place? what did you answer. >> i said yes. >> know you said not that i can recall. >> oh. again when they started talking

about this i had no idea this was coming that this was going to be discussed. >> that's no excuse for lying. >> i didn't recall enough of the details to want to give them an accurate information. so that is why i couched it in the way i catch it. >> you didn't give them accurate information. you gave them an accurate information when he said he couldn't recall it and it was very recent information. and then you were specifically asked that you give the cell phone number of one of conn's employees linda? do you remember your answer. >> no sir, what was that? >> what is it now? >> when i went back to huntington and was able to go through the whole process again

again -- >> what is your answer now? >> yes i did give her a phone number. >> but after you talk to our staffs your answer was not that i remember. much closer to the event when you talk to the ig. and then you were informed -- you were asked if you are aware of calls being made to linda about sera car for's flexiplace and you were asked specifically about the question and your answer? do you remember your answer? >> i believe i don't recall. >> no, and not that i know of.

[inaudible conversations] i guess i am done. thank you very much mr. chairman and thank you for holding this hearing. >> we want to thank you and we want to thank dr. coburn and we want to thank you are staffs. for two years worth of work that have brought us to this hearing today. i want to thank our witnesses and especially our first panel of witnesses for make and the track here and for risking a lot to be here. >> mr. chairman? i think probably if dr. coburn were here he would ask that this matter now be adjourned. it is at or adjourned lex if we

are going to have another hearing. we can get judge daugherty back as well as a social security people. >> we are going to have another hearing and the panel we had hoped to be here panel for the social security administration edison is our government is up and running again and the shutdown is over we will reconvene the hearing and complete these deliberations at least for now. we expects dr. daugherty to be here dr. judge daugherty to be here at that time. our hearing today discusses -- deeply troubling findings regarding things that lead knowledge are critically important in our country as it supports americans who are unable to work and to not live a

fluently are well but to have at least a life and access to health care through medicare or medicaid. it's important program. it's a needed program and it's a program that is within the next year or two is going to run out of money entirely. to best ensure it's going to be there for folks who needed in years to come is to look at how operating this program in kentucky or west virginia or anyplace else and ask this question if it is imperfect how do we make it better? how do we make it better? we in congress have a responsibility and it's a shared responsibility but a responsibility to make certain efforts that we talked about here that i needed to prevent fraud waste or abuse. our efforts are joined by a lot of people not just here in

washingtwashingt on and not just on this committee but folks around the country who actually do the work on a daily basis to receive the applications for disability, to decide on them and to adjudicate them and to move on. i really again want to thank our witnesses for joining us today and for taking the time to be here with us. this is not the end of the road and i would like to "matt winston churchill when he was asked after world war ii six months later they threw him out of office and he was asked by a reporter. for you mr. churchill is this the end? and he said this is not the end. this is not the beginning or the end. this is the end of the beginning. and for some of you that's not going to be very good news but

this is a story that has not been written in its entirety. however the story ends up we will make darn sure that the folks get a fair shake when they are applying for the disability awards and we will make sure that the folks who are running these programs play by the rules and back to the extent that we can people are figuring out what is the right thing to do and doing it and we have leaders in place and other places to make sure that is going to be the case. the record will be open for a think another 15 days until october 22 at 5:00 p.m.. statements and questions for the record. with that this hearing is adjourned. thank you.

..

"washington journal" live every morning with your call at 7:00 a.m. eastern on c-span. a house has adjourned and the senate has adjourned. preston brooks makes his way over to the senate chamber, coming across from the house. other to the senate chamber. he's carrying a good -- a cane with an old knob at the end. he gets to summer and says, mr. summer, as he does so he raises the cane and sum urban -- summer looks up. i read your speech over twice. it's a rival against my state and my relative as summer is looking up, brooks come down on the top of summer's head. it would take massachusetts senator three years to recover from the beating and take the

country another step closer to civil war. saturday night -- holiday weekend on american history tv on c-span 3. and throughout her life she helped raids awareness about educating the deaf and the needs of the disabled. we're at the house on the stanford university cam campus. it was the primary residence of the hoover. and it's significant as relates to hoover she was the one who designed it. she was had a strong grasp of design and how she wanted the house to look even though she wasn't a architect. we're lucky to have the -- response relating to the design and construction of how she wanted the house to look.

her influence came from the travel in the southwest of the united states also from her travels in north africa when she traveled with herbert hoover. it's a great legacy of henry's because she dine -- designed the show. she created it. it was inspired by her ideas and she had close involvement in all aspects of the house's creation. next a portion of today's white house briefing with press secretary jay carnie. he spoke about the president's phone call with john boehner. this is 25 minutes. [inaudible conversations]

good afternoon, everyone. thank you for being here and your patience. it's probably been a long afternoon, and i just wanted to i wanted to provide you with as much updated information as possible. i don't have an opening statement to make. in the interest of moving this along, i'll illustrate the questions. [laughter] well, i have -- i can answer some of your questions. it was the kind of information i hope to be responsive to your questions, at least in part that i sought and found. julie. >> reporter: can you tell us what the president and boehner discussed in their phone call? >> yes, i can. the president did call and speak with speaker of the house this afternoon, not long ago. had a good conversation, and the two of them agreed that all sides need to keep talking on the issues here that are

confronting us that have lead to shut down of the government and to the situation that put us on the -- you know, potential default or at least reaching that line beyond which the united states government doesn't have borrowing authority. so the president believes that in his meetings yesterday with house republican leader and today with senate republicans as well as, of course, with house and senate democrats that there are been constructive talks. when it comes to the house republicans in particular, there's an indication, anyway of a recognition that we need to remove default as a weapon in budget negotiations. that the threat of default should not be used. and certainly default itself is never an option.

the president appreciates the constructive naicht conversation and the proposal that house republicans put forward. he has some concerns with it, and i'll simply say without reading reading it -- i'm not going read out the details of the conversation of the phone call. the president's position that, you know, we the united states should not and american people cannot pay a ransom in the -- congress doing the job remains as true today as it -- >> reporter: are you talking about a new proposal from them that would increase the debt ceiling and exchange -- [inaudible] >> i don't think -- i'm not aware of multiple proposals. i think there's been a general discretion. i'm not going to get in to detail. i'll simply say that the president has belong -- long believed and insisted we

cannot allow a situation where one party in one house uses the threat of default to try to extract concession through budget negotiations. it is his position that the right thing to do is to remove that gun from the table. extend the debt ceiling in a way that ensures that there is no suggestion or hint that default is an option. because our economy can't endure that kind of approach to resolving our budget differences and proposals it puts a debt ceiling increase tied to budget negotiations would put us right back where we are today in just six weeks on the verge of thanksgiving and obviously important shopping season leading up to the holidays. that would create, you know,

enormous uncertainty for our economy, the president is spooking with -- speaking with small business owners. i heard from them that, you know, continued threat would be damaging to them. we don't think it's the right way to go. [inaudible conversations] >>let be clear about what his position has been and what i've said. it's the least that congress could do to pass legislation that would fund the government for the short term. the president believed, i think i stated many times we should raise the debt ceiling longer than that the senate proposed and will vote on soon. we should not link the threat of

default to budget negotiation. he's eager to engage in budget negotiations. that's something he demonstrated automatic yearlong and reflected earlier this year. we should not have a situation if we had to, once again, go through a process where one party was trying to extract concessions and budget negotiations and return for lifting the debt ceiling. >> there was a proposal that the house republicans came to the white house with yesterday for their meeting. and then house republican say there was a new proposal they presented at the white house staff last night that also included reopening the government. the white house has received that proposal? >> i'm not disputing that. but i'm -- >> reporter: the white house it say sounds like you're not accepting the proposal. i want to make sure. >> what the president and the speaker agreed on that everybody

should keep talking. the president appreciates the constructive approach. that we've been seeing and a change and the welcome change. he hopes an agreement can be reached. in relation to the proposal that has been discussed in the press, it is our view that we cannot have a situation where the debt ceiling is extended as part of a budget negotiation process for six weeks which would put us in the same position we're in now. i know, it's not uncomplicated, but a clean debt ceiling increase for six weeks with no conditions is distinct from one that links to budget negotiation and the continued threat of default as a point leverage in budget negotiation which is continually putting the american economy at risk in an effort to achieve some partisan advantage, which we can't do. >> further more, when it comes to the various proposals

discussed, it's certainly our view as it has been. there is no reason to keep the government shut down. the president wants to engage in constructive budget negotiation. he has seen indications from republicans in the house in the last 24-hours they, too, are interested in engaging in serious budget negotiation where we can achieve some of the goals that he put forward in his budget proposal buying down the sequester, investing in areas of our economy that will help it grow and protect the middle class, you know, continuing the work of reducing our deficit and addressing our long-term debt. and he very much looks bard to nap but there's no reason to not open the government right away in his view. >> reporter: do you feel like '02 close to an agreement? getting anywhere at all? i think the talks have been constructive and there's a

recognition at least among some republicans and republicans and republican leaders that shut down is not good for the american people and not good for the economy. the threat of default is damaging to the economy itself. and default itself would be catastrophically damage together economy and the american people. those that acknowledgment and realization created an environment where at least looks like there's a possibility of making progress here. the president's view is that we have to, again, remove these sort of demands for leverage using essentially the american people and the economy in order achieve what one side is seeking through negotiations. and summerly engage in the negotiations. don't punish the american people. we here in washington have

different points 77 view how we should invest moving forward and what mechanisms we can employ to the talks have been -- the talks have been constructive and the president appreciates the approach the speaker easterns have taken. you mentioned a couple of tie.s. is the biggest hangup is the -- [inaudible] again, the president did a number of concerns with the proposal. the although there are other part of the proposal that, you know, he thinks reflects areas we can find constructive agreement. any kind of budget deal have to pass through both houses of congress. that means agreement among democrats and republicans in both houses.

the one issue that i mentioned just now is that tieing the extension of the debt ceiling for only six weeks to budget negotiations create a dynamic that is very similar to the one we're experiencing now and very similar to the one the country experienced in 2011. and it has been the president's position one that he hold to the day is not the appropriate way to go. and that we ought to remove congress, republicans, ought to, you know, remove the threat of default as a point of leverage in budget negotiation. they're only doing harm to the american economy. they're only doing harm to the american people, and, you know, the president cannot, as he said, so many times pay ransom in exchange congress doing the fundamental responsibility, which is to ensure the that united doesn't default and pay the bills. [inaudible]

i'm not sure about the comments except to say that the senator should have expected the president to express his views on how we ought to move forward. i don't think republican senators held back or republican house members held back in express how they think we ought to move forward. we need to have constructive negotiations about our budget choices. not under a cloud that threatens default or continued government shut down. >> reporter: you mentioned the administration's concern with the republican proposal. what is the white house putting on the table? what do you see as the most realistic proposal in term of getting something done here? >> it is our position that there

is no acceptable reason to keep the government shut down. all it does is harm americans trying to make ends meet. harm the economy. and the government ought to be reopened. our position hasn't changed there. our pongs the debt ceiling hasn't changed. which is that it ought to be removed by congress as a tool in budget negotiations. because in the president created in 2011 republicans have now, for the second time, used the threat of default in an attempt to extract concessions that they could not extract through normal legislative means or through the election process. so that is unacceptable. it's not personal, it's not about this president. it's unacceptable as a governing mechanism for this country moving forward. because it would create a scenario where quarter after

quarter or biannually or manufacturing crises whether there was default or not do harm to our economy. slow job, reduce job creation, squeeze the middle class, squeeze maws within and it's not the way to do business. i think you are seeing among a number of lawmakers, both in the senate and the house, who are republicans, a recognition that it's not the right approach to take. when we have -- opinions about the kinds of decisions we need to make to move forward with our budget and our deficit reduction. >> reporter: you said the position hasn't changed on the shut down. the position hasn't changed on the debt ceil. how is that negotiating? >> i didn't mean, -- jim, the president had constructive conversations with house and senate republicans and democrats. his position that it's unacceptable to demand a ransom from the american people in

return for not defaulting -- it's not going change. it's not going change now and in six weeks and not going to change at any point during his presidency. nor does he expect that any of his suck -- successors will take a different position. what has always been true, that the president is willing to sit down, roll up the sleeves, and work out a common sense budget agreement with republicans that embodies both his objectives and republican objectives in a comprise that a comprise that achieves not everything he wants and not everything republicans want. through a comprise, achieves what the american people and the economy deserve -- >> reporter: you're waiting for the white flag? >> you want to turn it in to a game of winners and losers.

and the president made clear in the other day that where a situation where the government is shout down and the one party in congress is threatening default and some of their loudest voices are encouraging default, nobody wins. nobody win. he wants a situation where we can discuss and debate our differences and reach an agreement willing to comprise on both sides on the behalf of the american people and economy. he believe it is possible. and believes that a lot we're not there yet there not an agreement. there are indications in the last 24 hours that willingnd to explore the possibility. >> reporter: on a totally different subject [inaudible] by not giving the nobel peace

prize -- ?awbl? >> let me say, first, that we'll be putting out a statement. i wanted to say that the president obama congratulates the organization for the prohibition of chemical weapons. the opc -- which reenforce the international community deployment ncial sprue birks again the use of chemical weapon. one of the president's highest priority is to prevent the proliferation or use of weapons of mass destruction. this award honors those who make it their life's work to advance this vital goal. since the establishment 16 years ago they stood at the forefront at the international community effort to verify mr. wilson eliminate some of the world's most dangerous weapon. it reenforces the trust and confidence they placed in the opcw in the director general and the courageous opcw expert and inspector taking on the

unprecedented challenge right now of e eliminating syria's chemical weapon program. the u.s. strongly supports them. to ensure the stockpile are placed under international control. we call on all to bring to an end that cross the the live of more than 100,000 syrian and support the efforts in the hope that future generations can live in a world free from the horror of chemical weapons. in answer to your question, that young woman's courage and efforts are remarkable. he doesn't think the nobel committee -- [inaudible] >> i think the president -- you know, as i just noted congratulates the winner of the nobel peace prize and obviously think there's an enormous amount

of good work being done around the world on behalf of peace. and all of it should be recognized. >> the republican started this off by demanding full defunding of the affordable care act in exchange for funding of the government for six weeks. a whole laundry list of republican priorities in exchange for raising the debt ceiling. the republicans have backed down? >> you ? john i would just say, as i mentioned before, it's not really how it should be viewed. that it's a win-lose-diser aresome competition. because there are losers regardless in a process like this government shut down, default has threatened, and the president wants that dynamic to

change. he has made clear his willingness to negotiate and reach a comprise with republicans on a long-term budget deal. but he doesn't think that it's appropriate to exact price for the american people or punish the american economy in an effort to try to tip the balance of those discussions and negotiations by republicans. and he's been pretty firm about that. he's encouraged by some of the developments that we've seen, and he agrees with the speaker that we need to continue talking and hopes that we can reach a resolution here that removes the threat of default from the table consider if a considerable duration. that's certainly the president's view. allow the government reopen as soon as possible. put people back to work and end this situation where there are terrible consequences occurring

every day that we all hear about and you report on. and we can get about the business of hammering out a comprise that will give each side something to be proud of. something to point to and say we got that because we thought activity important and willing to work with the president and the democrats -- this is the republicans speaking. on what, you know, they insisted was important. we reached a comprise. and if we can do that, you know, on a longer term. how long, obviously depend on what the negotiations would look like. it would be good for the american economy. >> none of the original demands are on the substantial still, are they? >> again, when it comes to threatening the full, faith, and credit of the united -- accept the basic premise using that as leverage is highly

damaging to the economy and to the american middle class. and, you know, i think, again, we have seen over the course of the last several days and weeks a developing recognition this going down the path was not the right way to go, and for all the reason that it -- and lessons we have learned in 2011. >> one last thing with the policy to josh. can you explain to me how west wing week is being produced? is it a central government service not shut down as part of the shut down? >> i would refer you to the manage officer and -- >> reporter: they don't mention -- >> the weekly video web cast called the omb, but, you know, the communication obviously significantly slimmed down as are so many offices here. communications are a part of what we need to do at the white house. >> reporter: is it fair to say that the conversation now is

about not whether to avoid default, but the duration? that is what is being -- i think back and forth. the -- sure. i'm not going put the terminology that everybody is sensitive to. there's agreement to avoid default and the central issue is for how long? >> well, i would without getting in to depth about conversations that i don't want to read out. i would simply say based what you've heard from republican leaders in both houses. there's a recognition that default is not an acceptable outcome, and not an option. and it is true that we don't thinks there's -- he have great concern about any proposition that would tie the next extension of the debt ceiling destructly to budget negotiations in six weeks right

before we have the most important retail season -- >> reporter: what about something longer than that? >> it's absolutely our view we should remove extension of the debt ceiling from this conversation. that the threat of default should not be part of gauche. that's been our position all along. this sunday, part two of our conversation with josh bolton. >> host: start off by giving us what you saw with the press, the immediate -- media and that world. how did you view them? >> >> guest: usually with some hostility. which is just the natural state of affairs between the white house and the press corp. because that's just the nature of what the press needs to do. they need to try to catch the white house out on whatever is going on. more with bush administration chief of staff josh bolton sunday night at 8:00

on c-span q & a. every weekend since 1998 c-span2 booktv has shown over 40,000 hours of programming with top non-fiction authors. ..

>> we want to know how the government shutdown is affecting you. please send us your coutts. coming up next a senate hearing on government functions that have stopped as a result of the ongoing government shutdown.