the chief economist, said that the nation's economic growth was slowed by as much as a percentage point. that means jobs. this is a very inefficient political tactic and prank to play on the american people. "c.q." reports business leaders also understand averting a shutdown is crucial to our economic recovery. that is why, again, i hope you'll agree to my unanimous consent to keep the government opened. while we continue to negotiate. while we continue to try to get to an agreement. congressional quarterly also points out that, quote, in the event of a shut down the small business administration would not guarantee loans for business working capital. real estate investment, or job creation activities. it makes no sense to shut down the government. my friends, when they say, the democrats in the senate, let me tell you why the democrats in the senate can't move things forward, because they can't get

60 votes. why can't they get 60 votes? because the republican leader of the united states senate will not let any of his republicans join the 53 democrats in the senate to get to 60. ladies and gentlemen, we ought not to shut down this government. the speaker pro tempore: the gentleman's time has expired. mr. hoyer: i urge my colleagues to approve a unanim >> and fast-moving story with a lot of pieces to it as we follow this spending and budget debate and all the issues. we have been watching it from the start right here on the c- span networks but we have it all available online at c-span.org. you can watch hearings, read briefings, and see the analysis. you can track your representative who has voted on some of the issues related to this spending and budget debate. all of that is at our website, c-span.org. >> is washington works on

funding for the current fiscal year, debate has also started on next year's federal budget. see what has been said from capitol hill to the white house, on line at the c-span video library. search, watched from a cliff, and a share, with everything we have covered since 1987. it is what you want, when you want. >> and we expect the house of representatives to come back in in about 15 minutes or so, we're told it up until then, more on the spending into the budget with a member of the budget committee. host: we want to welcome back paul tonko, a member of the budget committee. thank you for being with us. guest: it is good to be with you. host: where do we stand? guest: i am hopeful we can come to a successful conclusion. i know that last night the president met at the white house with speaker boehner and with majority leader harry reid.

the reports were that they made progress and that they are moving closer to resolve. i don't think it is about the numbers. i think it is about some of the that are associated with this. if we can acknowledge that these other policies are best dealt with in a legislature that can be introduced before the committees, i think we can millage shot -- i think we can nail it shut. host: "we will continue to work through the night." is anyone pushing for a government shutdown? guest: i saw some joyful expressions when the possibility of a shutdown were mentioned. i find that incredible. i think we should be of the mindset that a shutdown is not helpful.

it is costly to taxpayers. it causes further delay in getting to what the voters really want us to accomplish. that is job creation and addressing the strengthening of our economy. i think the whole shut down situation is unnecessary and if people can just stay to the budget discussions, i think the numbers are there. i would pick knowledge every time we move, i think my conference has moved tremendously to try and build a consensus. but every time you moved to near completion, they moved the goal line. i think it is the extreme, reckless response from some elements within the republican ranks, primarily driven by the tea party, situation that is causing the delay. host: if there's an inability to reach an agreement on a budget

that separates democrats and republicans by about $7 billion, how can congress and the white house work on a longer budget agreement for next year and beyond to reduce what is approaching a $15 trillion debt? guest: i find right now that our middle class has got to be a laser sharp focus. the middle class has taken it on the chin. they need to have their purchasing power strengthen. without a strong middle class, you don't have a strong america. with the budget being -- the budget needs to be seen as something more than just bean counting or ledgers as accountants would approach them. you need to put a human face and we know that we can all the

college that the middle class has seen little growth if any in their purchasing power and economic vitality. many are struggling with chronic unemployment before the recession. we need to move forward and address that in a way that puts the focus on those principles, those the u.s., those priorities for the middle class, and then i think we can come to terms. this sets a tone for the 2012 budget. right now, i saw some very strong splits out there. but we can heal those splits if we focus on the middle class. i agree with that sentiment. i think the tone is exactly where we're at.

usg executive salaries grow over the last couple of decades -- we have seen executive salaries grow over the last couple of decades. we have the biggest gap since our history in those that are mighty and those that are middle class. that is not sustainable. somebody has to purchase products. somebody has to build products. i think we're kidding ourselves if we can go forward and have a vibrant future without a vibrant middle class. caller: good morning. hello? host: john, you're on the air. please turn down the volume. caller: i don't have a question. i have a couple of comments i would like to make. i think the people and congress need to realize that they're not

republicans, not democrats, not independence. their senators and congressmen. they work for everybody in their district, not just the party. i know that if i had a job and i was working at it and i don't did the job done by the deadline, my boss would probably fire me. they need to realize that, too. host: why didn't democrats pass that last year? guest: it was a difficult measure to get something done. it a 60-vote count was required. it was a struggle. past history is not going to help solve this moment in time. will we need to do is acknowledge that this should be about budget carving, not policy

that is being set three budget process. that distracts and diminishes the opportunities to get this done. try to insert a policy that structures, that the e nicepa and predict that denies epa the rights and responsibility to do their job, to clean the water we drink, is inappropriate. if you don't like that law, create a bill and put it before the committee. but to not work on policy development as we close a budget that is inappropriate. you're mixing situations that are not appropriate. host: we're talking with representative paul tonko of new york. this is andre from new york city. caller: how are you? i am not doing too well. this is upsetting.

we have a $14 trillion debt. this is not a compromise. it is a slap in the face. he vetoes the bill to support the military. we have three extravagant wars. this is crazy. guest: i think you have to look at the big picture. you're taking one single bill that the president indicated he would not support. another $12 billion worth of cuts and also riders that addressed policy change. there was a motion in the house to protect military personnel when it comes to the government shutdown. it was denied.

there is enough russia now to get discouraged by all the activity. let's get the business done and let's do it writiright. you need a timely budget. i would assume your work product is deemed acceptable. what you suggest could've been avoided if the vote before the house was approved. get the job done today. i am hopeful. some are reporting their is a tacit agreement at the table and that the individual leaders have to go to their respective conferences and sell the package. host: do you have a meeting with mrs. pelosi? guest: i believe other is a caucus this morning. host: food on capitol hill would be sparse.

and the restrooms were perhaps not be as fresh. guest: it is not about us. we should not worry about the impact on us. my concern is the impact on middle class america. i'm concerned about the youngster who might get a headstart. i am concerned about the youngsters who'll get a reduction in education aid. i am concerned about public safety, police and firefighter is being taken out of our local communities. i am concerned about roads and bridges. there is an investment that america requires for kirk middle class. those who have are doing even better under these proposals appeared the pockets of oil companies. shipping jobs overseas. these folks are doing well. we just need to bring it back to middle class america.

middle class america said in the last elections it is about the jobs, about the future, being able to help my child a cheaper high-school diplomas or college degree. these other things, the utility costs, the energy costs, let's get down to the real entities that affect bread and butter opportunities for working families across this country. host: our guests represents albany and amsterdam, paul tonko is a member of the house budget committee. one of our viewers that will not accept cuts to epa without cuts to military and nation-building. guest: i think we have to be fair and look at all sections. if you do not think there is opportunity for advancement and efficiency and fraught with in

the pentagon, i think you are not being fair. -- if this is the and fraud -- efficiency and fraud. there have been reviews done at the pentagon that suggest we should explore more deeply. one of contractors reviewing contractors' surety defense department. i think there is a lot room for improvement. the have highlighted a contractor who provided an overbuilt by $20 million a delivery of fuel to the department of defense. that's to be a wake-up call. go and check out all sections. this is the problem right now. america needs to understand. middle class america needs to be cognizant that what they are looking at is one slice of the pie. this is a small wedge of a big multi trillion dollar federal budget. therein all it is all the

imposed damage and pain in that one narrow wedge. it is a drop in the ocean. but when you put it over a smaller slice and you impacted upon the middle class community of america, that is the egregious quality of his budget proposals 2011 . host: how higher taxes on rich strength in the middle class? guest: what you need to do is share the burden in a way that reduces the tax burden on the middle class community. thousandiving on see fi dollars sixth thousand dollars-- 1

nine >> we're going to break away and take you live back to the floor of the u.s. house. res. 37. the clerk: union calendar number 25. house joint resolution 37. joint resolution disapproving the rules submitted by the federal communications commission with respect to regulating the internet and broadband industry practices. . the speaker pro tempore: for what purpose does the gentleman from massachusetts rise? mr. mcgovern: mr. speaker, pursuant to clause 3 of rule 16, i demand the question of consideration. the speaker pro tempore: the question is will the house now consider the joint resolution. all those in favor say aye. all those opposed, no. in the opinion of the chair, the ayes have it. mr. mcgovern: mr. speaker. on that i ask for the yeas and nays. the speaker pro tempore: the yeas and nays are requested. those favoring a vote by the yeas and nays will rise. a sufficient number having arisen, the yeas and nays are ordered. members will record their votes by electronic device.

[captioning made possible by the national captioning institute, inc., in cooperation with the united states house of representatives. any use of the closed-captioned coverage of the house proceedings for political or commercial purposes is expressly prohibited by the

gentleman from oregon. >> mr. speaker, the house is not in order. members will please take their conversations from the floor.

the speaker pro tempore: members, take your conversations from the floor. members will take conversations from the floor. the chair now recognizes the gentleman from oregon. mr. walden: thank you, mr. speaker. mr. speaker. the house is still not in order. the speaker pro tempore: the gentleman is correct.

members will please take their conversations from the floor. mr. walden: thank you, mr. speaker. mr. speaker, i ask unanimous consent that all members may have five legislative days to revise and extend their remarks on the legislation and to insert extraneous material on the bill. the speaker pro tempore: without objection, so ordered. mr. walden: mr. speaker, i yield myself such time as i may consume. the speaker pro tempore: the gentleman is recognized. members and staff will please take their conversations from the floor. the gentleman is recognized. mr. walden: thank you, mr. speaker. in a representative democracy, federal agencies may impose regulations only to the extent authorized by the united states congress, the elected representatives of the american people. i introduced h.j.res. 37 which enjoys bipartisan support because congress is not authorized the federal communications commission to regulate the internet.

h.j.res. 37 is a resolution of disapproval filed pursuant to the congressional review act. it would prevent the agency from imposing the same or substantially similar rules through reclassification of broadband under title 2 of the communications act or through any other claim source of direct or ancillary authority. if not challenged, the f.c.c.'s grab would allow it to regulate any interstate communication service on barely more than a whim and without any additional input from congress. mr. speaker, the house is not in order. the speaker pro tempore: the gentleman is correct. members and staff will please take their conversations from the floor. the gentleman is recognized. mr. walden: thank you, mr. speaker. the f.c.c.'s claim that it can regulate the internet under section 706 of the 1996 telecommunications act is not credible.

the f.c.c. has previously held that section 706 is not an independent grant of authority and the language of the section tells the f.c.c. to remove barriers to investment not create them. the f.c.c.'s reliance on section 706 could open the internet to regulation by all 50 states. also flawed is the f.c.c.'s claim it can regulate the internet under titles 2, 3, and 6 of the communications act because broadband has indirect impact on traditional services. section 230 of the communications act makes clear that it is the policy of the united states to preserve the vibrant and competitive free market that presently exists for the internet and other interactive computer services unfettered by federal or state regulation. this regulation by bank shot is nothing more than a week attempt to do an end run around the d.c. circuit court's april

2010 ruling in the comcast case that the f.c.c. failed to show it had authority to regulate internetanyahuwork management. the internet is open and innovative thanks to the government's hands off approach. as democrat f.c.c. chairman william kennard has explained, and i quote, the fertile fields of innovation across the communications sector and around the country are blooming because from the get-go we have taken a deregulatory competitive approach to our communications structure, especially the internet, close quote. there is no crisis warranting government intervention. the f.c.c. even admits in its order, in its own order it did not conduct a market power analysis. once again, mr. speaker, the house is clearly not in order. the speaker pro tempore: the gentleman is correct. the gentleman deserves to be heard. the gentleman is recognized. mr. walden: thank you, mr. speaker. dr. david fasher, the grandfather of the internet, says the f.c.c.'s quote order

will sweep broadband i.s.p.'s and potentially the entire internet into the big tent of regulation. what does this mean? consumer needs take second place and the previously innovative and vibrant industry becomes a creature of government rule making, close quote, from the grandfather of the internet. the order picks winners and losers. it will threaten small providers that do not have the resources to send teams of lawyers to camp out at the f.c.c. how carriers manage their network should be determined by engineers and entrepreneurs and consumers in the marketplace not by a few un-elected commissioners at the f.c.c. my colleagues claim large broadband providers support the order. you'll hear that today, but they only did so under the threat of being regular lated like an old-fashioned telephone company under title 2 of the communications act. they are still concerned. and they say network neutrality is a solution in search of a problem. .

at&t's c.e.o. has said, and i quote. i would be lying if i was totally pleased with it and, quote, i'd like to have no regulation to be candid but that wasn't going to happen, closed quote. the c.e.o. of a large cable association said, there could be an adverse economic impact to deploy these new services, closed quote. the c.e.o. of a large wireless situation said that some uncertainty over f.c.c. implementation remains and that, quote, increased relation tends to depressed instead of accelerate it, closed quote. senate majority leader harry reid, one of the authors of the c.r.a., said the disapproval process is, and i quote, the majority leader of the senate, a reasonable, sensible approach to regulatory reform, closed quote. you see, the c.r.a. was signed by congress, signed into law by

president clinton and despite the recent criticism, even my colleagues themselves have co-sponsored disapproval resolutions in the past. including mr. waxman, ms. eshoo, mr. markey, ms. schakowsky and mr. dingell. they co-sponsored h.j.r. 72 in 2003. and another was h.j.r. 28 in 2008. both were resolutions disapproving f.c.c. rules. so my colleagues say amendments were not in order. that's because the language of the congressional review act says disprolve resolutions would allow frustrate congress' intent providing a straight up or down vote in these approvals of overreaching rules. my colleagues say instead of considering this legislation we should be debating comprehensive legislation for the f.c.c. to regulate the internet. then, why did they refuse our

repeated proposal last congress? there was no time for even to debate last congress and why did they only single out certain segments of the industry and require a market analysis? it's all too convenient for after the rules have been adopted and vulnerable for legislative and judicial reversal before engaging. a vote against this resolution, a vote against this resolution is simply a vote that will allow the f.c.c. to adopt substantially similar rules under title 2 when the f.c.c. loses in court. en something even network neutrality advocates, like free press, says is likely. so for all these reasons i urge my colleagues to support h.j.res. 37, and i reserve the balance of my time. the speaker pro tempore: the gentleman reserves the balance of his time. the chair now recognizes the

gentleman from california. mr. waxman: mr. speaker, i yield myself five minutes. the speaker pro tempore: the gentleman is recognized. mr. waxman: today, we're considering h.j.res. 37, a resolution to invalidate the f.c.c.'s open internet rules. we are debating this bill under the shadow of a shutdown of the federal government. the republicans are holding the economic recovery and millions of jobs hostage to their extreme demands on the budget and their ideological demands on social and regulatory issues. and as -- and at such a moment of grave threat to our economic health, what are we doing on the floor today? the republican leadership insists on bringing to the floor a bill that will end the internet as we know it and threaten the jobs -- >> mr. speaker, the house is not in order. the speaker pro tempore: the gentlewoman is correct.

the gentleman is recognized. mr. waxman: this bill will end the internet as we know it and threaten the jobs, investment and prosperity the internet has brought to america. this is an outrageous sense of priorities and policies. this legislation is a bad bill. this bill would give big phone and cable companies control over what websites americans can visit, what applications they can run and what devices they can use. the internet may be the greatest engine in our economy today, american internet companies laid the world in innovation. they have created over a million jobs. there is one overriding reason the internet has fostered such innovation and economic growth, it is open. a kid with a brilliant idea can launch his or her own company out of their family garage.

the f.c.c. order protects the openness and vitality of the internet. the resolution we are debating today would end it. the republican proponents of the resolution will say the exact opposite. they will say they are trying to protect freedom of the internet by stopping government regulation. how are the american people to know who is right? well, the answer is easy. just ask google, facebook, amazon, netflix, ebay and the others in the open internet coalition that depends on the openness of the internet. they asked the f.c.c. to act because, i quote, baseline rules are critical to ensuring the internet remains a key engine of economic growth, end quote. and they oppose this resolution because it will hurt consumers and innovation. they understand that in most parts of the country that

verizon, at&t and comcast have a virtual monopoly over access to the internet. the phone and cable companies are the gatekeepers to the information highway. without regulations, they could choke off innovation by charging for the right to communicate with their customers. consumer advocates, civil rights organizations, religious groups and labor unions have exactly the same view. the committee has heard from 150 organizations urging congress to keep the internet open and defeat this bill. even the companies that might benefit the most from this legislation do not support the resolution. in fact, at&t and the cable industry support the f.c.c.'s orders because it provides greater certainty for investment. this bill is partisan. it is anti-innovation and it threatens to transform the open

internet into a series of control by the phone and cable companies. this is a bill that is not going anywhere. we shouldn't be wasting our time on this legislation when there's a threat that our whole government is going to be closed down because of our partisan extreme views of the republican majority. i reserve the balance of my time. the speaker pro tempore: the gentleman reserves the balance of his time. mr. waxman: mr. speaker, i ask unanimous consent that ms. eshoo from california be able to control the rest of the time on the democratic side. the speaker pro tempore: without objection, so ordered. the gentleman from oregon is recognized. mr. walberg: mr. chairman, i just want to -- mr. speaker, i want to make one point. this is not partisan legislation. we have two democrats as co-sponsors of the legislation. i anticipate will actually have a bipartisan vote as it has in the past. i now yield to the chairman of the energy and commerce committee, mr. upton, such time as he may consume. the speaker pro tempore: the gentleman is recognized. mr. upton: well, thank you, mr. chairman. and i want to thank the

gentleman and the chair of the subcommittee on telecommunications for yielding this time and for his leadership on the legislation. once again we're here to put the brakes on runaway bureaucracy. the f.c.c. has overstepped its authority in its attempting to seize control of the nation's greatest technological success stories. if there is one segment of our economy that continues to fire on all cylinders in the current economic environment it is the information technology sector and the internet. the f.c.c.'s 2010 national broadband plan reports that 95% of the country has access to broadband and 2/3 subscribe. the number of users has skyrocketed to 200 million from eight million 10 years ago. that translates into real investment and real jobs. in 2009 the communications sector invested in close to $90 billion. in the u.s. and directly employed approximately 1 1/2

million people. all of the success stories that we're hearing from apple to zip cart card have not -- zip card have done this because of the absent of government intervention. to creative business models, the internet has been an innovative marketplace because the government kept its hands off. because of the innovation success story, the f.c.c. has fundamentally changed the technology landscape by adopting rules regulating the internet. like the late democratic f.c.c. commissioner, a good guy from michigan said if it ain't broke don't break it. well, mr. chairman, the internet is not broken and this bill will ensure that the f.c.c. does not break it. george willis said most of the people think that the government doesn't work so well and the internet is. why are we putting the government in charge of the

internet? some of my colleagues criticize the use of the c.r.a. let me remind my critics that they have overturned previous f.c.c. rulemaking. mr. waxman, ms. eshoo, mr. markey, ms. schakowsky and mr. dingell co-sponsored h.j.res. 72 in 2003. mr. waxman, ms. eshoo, mr. doyle, ms. schakowsky, and ms. baldwin co-sponsored h.j.res. 7 9 in 2008. senator harry reid helped create the disapproval process in the c.a. to give congress a straight up or down vote on this kind of regulatory overreach. that's why this statute itself provides the language of disapproval resolutions and which is why there are no amendments. president obama has said that his priority is to focus on jobs. he's also said that his administration will void owner us and unnecessary regulations that stifle investment and innovation. on january 18, the president

issued an executive order calling on agencies to base regulations on a reasoned determination that their benefits justify their costs. well, the executive -- while the executive order does not apply to independent agencies the president urged such agencies to follow it and yet the f.c.c. admitted in its network neutrality order that they conducted that no market power analysis. the internet is not broken. the market has not failed. imposing these rules will cause more harm than good by chilling the very investment and innovation that we need to ensure that the internet keeps pace with the growing demands being placed on it. it will only hurt our economy. ultimately it's a question of authority. the f.c.c. lacks both legal and policy justifications for its action. the agency keeps changing its story about where it gets the power to issue the rule. each time teetering from one weak explanation to another based on the political

impediment that it's facing. none, none are consistent with its own precedent and in the comcast case that the f.c.c. has failed to show its authority in this. so, mr. speaker, if we allow the f.c.c. to seize control of the internet it's going to reduce innovation and investment, fewer jobs. i urge my colleagues to vote in support of this resolution and yield back my time to the gentleman from oregon. the speaker pro tempore: the gentleman yields back. the gentleman from oregon reserves the balance of his time. the gentlewoman from california is recognized. ms. eshoo: mr. speaker, i rise in opposition to this resolution 37 which if enacted would overturn the f.c.c.'s open internet rules, not closed internet rules. the first thing that i want to say today is that at 2:00 p.m. today, which is the time right

now, we are moving ever closer to the shutdown of our government. i think that this is a very sad day, a day when the rest of the world that always looks to the united states of america to be the best example for what we do, how we do it, what we say and how we comport ourselves that there is failure within a few hours. a total collapse of leadership. so while this is taking place, that is the toxic cloud that really hangs over the house. this resolution -- this resolution isn't about acting -- going to use four minutes, mr. speaker. this resolution isn't about acting in the interest of american innovation, american jobs, american competition or american consumers. quite simply, this is an

ideological assault on a government agency and their ability to provide basic consumer protections. if this were about innovation, jobs, competition or consumers, the majority wouldn't really be offering it because it disables a free and open internet which has brought about greater consumer choice and ushered in some of the most successful businesses of the past two decades in america, from google and facebook to amazon and ebay. i know because so many of them -- and i'm so proud of this -- are constituent companies of my distinguished congressional district. these companies and thousands of others like them offer access to news, shopping, video, music and social networking and has resulted in more than three million new american jobs over the past 15 years. . if the majority understood this they wouldn't stand in the way

of it. in fact, consumers have lined up against what the majority has brought to the floor today. some of the largest broadband providers in the nation, at&t, comcast, and others have lined up against it. small businesses have lined up against it. medium-sized businesses that are in the business, the internet business, have lined up against it. more than 150 organizations, including public interest organizations, civil rights groups, unions, education advocates have lined up against it. the united states conference of catholic bishops has lined up against it. the united church of christ and evangelical lutheran church in america has lined up against it. the computer and communications industry association of america has lined up against it. tech net is against it. these groups overwhelmingly

agree that the c.r.a. is not the answer. now, the chairman said earlier that many members on this side that have enacted, used the c.r.a., on other pieces of legislation. yes, we have, we thought it was appropriate to. we are not opposed to the c.r.a. but we are in terms of using it on this. i really think at the end of the day that this is ideological. i think in the republican d.n.a. there is total opposition to any federal agency that is charged with carrying out protection of consumers and those things that the congress believes are the best for the american people. so with all of these businesses, all of these organizations, i think with all due respect that you have a very, very weak case. with that i will reserve the balance of my time.

the speaker pro tempore: the gentlewoman reserves her time. mr. walden: i recognize the gentleman from texas, for two minutes, mr. barton. the speaker pro tempore: the gentleman from texas is recognized. mr. barton: thank you, distinguished subcommittee chairman. i ask unanimous consent to revise and extend my remarks. the speaker pro tempore: without objection. mr. barton: thank you. madam speaker, when i came to congress in 1985, there was no such thing as a cell phone. i remember my first mobile phone was a box phone. it cost about two bucks a minute to use as i recall. we did have personal computers, but they were big and bulky and very slow. i still had a typewriter in my office. and i had constituents that still used telephones that had the dial, actually the dial, the mechanical dial.

that was in 1985. today we have over two billion users of the internet. i have two blackberries. i have a laptop. i have a personal computer. in my home. in fact in my home in arlington, texas, we have two. the internet has revolutionized telecommunications. yet in december of 2010 the f.c.c. adopted a rule giving themselves the right to regulate the internet. gave them the right to regulate how fixed and mobile broadband providers disclose their network management practices, performance characteristics, regulate how fixed and mobile broadband characters provide access to content, application, services, and device, determine whether the way fixed broadband providers are carrying network traffic is unreasonably discriminatory, regulate how

fixed and mobile broadband carriers charge for carriage of traffic, and determine whether fixed and mobile broadband providers network management techniques are reasonable. this is regulation of the internet. mr. walden's bill is pretty straightforward. it's one paragraph. you can read it. doesn't take much time. just simply says that the federal communications commission cannot regulate the internet. we have the most successful business practice in the last 100 years, and we are trying to give the f.c.c. the ability to regulate it. give me a break. this isn't republican d.n.a., this is plain common sense. vote for the walden bill to not give the f.c.c. the authority to regulate the internet. the speaker pro tempore: the gentlewoman california. ms. eshoo: yes. i'd like to recognize mr. markey of massachusetts for three minutes. the speaker pro tempore: the

gentleman is recognized for three minutes. mr. markey: i thank the gentlelady. in two days the republicans have proven that they always side with the biggest behemoth companies. yesterday they said it's ok for the biggest oil and coal and chemical companies to pollute the atmosphere. today they are saying that it's ok for the biggest communications companies to totally control the entire blue dogos fear -- blogoatmosphere, they want to spoil google eth and mother earth in a 24-hour period. they want domination in the world wide web in pollution of the whole wide world all within 24 hours. let me give you a little history here, ladies and gentlemen. we had no competition in the internet, the wireless world, in 1993, two companies, analog, 50 cents a minute. no one had a cell phone in their company.

we had to move over the 200 megahertz. we had to say there was a third, fourth, and fifth, and sixth company so there would be competition and block the first two companies who were not innovating. why? because there was no darwinian, paranoia inducing competition to force them to move. and then in 1996 when the whole country was analog, we had to pass another bill to move them to digital. to move them to broadband. because the behemoths had yet to deploy broadband to one home in the united states. no competition, no innovation, no compen at this times -- benefits to consumers, but the biggest companies the republicans support they were happy with the way things were going because they could charge whatever they wanted to, provide whatever services they want to, ignore competition, and ignore consumers simultaneously. that's what this debate is all

about. we had to ensure that those behe meths, the mon -- behemoths, the monopolies, were taken from the clutches of the republicans and put out into the world where they had to compete. what do we have here today? another republican congressional resolution saying let's go back to that era where the biggest companies, the monopolies, defy the one lesson that adam smith taught us, which is that monopolies are incapable of enjoying anything but the respect of those who are already in the wealthy class while ignoring those who are in the consumer class. that's their history. that's the number one lesson of adam smith that we must beware of ologopies and here what we have in our hands is shut down the one job creating engine that has driven our company over the last 15 years since we opened up competition and they want to shut it down.

ladies and gentlemen, 50% of the growth of our economy in the 1990's was in this sector. it's because we had competition. they want to shut it down here today. vote no on the republican resolution which ends this era of the open internet that allows -- the speaker pro tempore: the gentleman's time has expired. mr. markey: everyone in their garage at home to dream big that they can create new jobs in our economy. the speaker pro tempore: the gentleman from oregon is recognized. mr. walden: thank you, madam speaker. i yield myself such time as i may consume. obviously my friend the gentleman from massachusetts walked in late because we just heard that all those big companies he railed against are opposed to this resolution we have before us. so if anybody's doing the bidding of those companies, it must be the democrats who have railed us against all those companies he just railed against who are opposed to us. now i yield to my vice chairman of the communications

subcommittee, mr. terry, two minutes. mr. terry: thank you. the speaker pro tempore: the gentleman is recognized for two minutes. mr. terry: thank you. there's really three major points to bring up here. one is congress did not give the f.c.c. authorization to regulate the internet. there is no authorization. mr. markey had a bill. it didn't get enough support even in a democratic controlled congress to pass. there was not support for net neutrality bill in the senate. so the president who made campaign promises to some of his biggest supporters from california had to do it through the f.c.c.. the back in ways of legislating have to stop. that's what we are doing here today. the second point is the robust nature of the internet. i love the argument that as it's been deregulated somehow

it's been stifled by -- from innovation. like we haven't seen the facebooks and goingles which are in favor of net neutrality. come to being. my goodness, it was the robust internet that allowed these great experiments like netflix to come up. now they are so big they want help through government agencies for advantages in the marketplace. we hear a lot about blocking. that it's about blocking content. there's been about a half a dozen instances, madam speaker, where internet providers did block in some way altered the people's ability to go to a website. all instances, all instances were resolved by their customers' pressure and some encouragement by the f.c.c. so the fact that these instances were resolved and everyone knows there should be

no block blocking, why are we here except for the real reason to give the f.c.c. power over business plans. mr. markey from -- just mentioned it. the gentlelady from california mentioned it. it's about tiering. if you walk into mcdonald's you pay more for a large coke than a small coke. but yet under the f.c.c.'s plan they want one size fits all, one price, which is the -- the speaker pro tempore: the gentleman's time has expired. the gentlewoman from california. miss herb eshoo: a high -- ms. eshoo: a highly member of the subcommittee, mr. doyle of pennsylvania for four minutes. mr. doyle: i rise in the strongest possible opposition to this resolution. if enacted it will strip the federal communications commission of its authority to police the most egregious

conduct of broadband providers and it would permit those providers to block consumers' access to lawful websites of their choice. the f.c.c.'s open internet rule makes two simple promises. to consumers that we can visit any legal website and use any online service on any device we want. to innovators, that they don't have to ask permission from the government or get shaken down by internet access providers, when they come up with a new website, device, or service. that's it. that isn't regulating the internet. no one's proposing to regulate internet content. but internet access providers have always lived with basic rules of the road. no blocking was chief among them. those basic rules of the road are what turned the internet into the economic engine that it is today. but in our hearings on this bill we learned that some broadband providers want the right to block what you can

see. i'll tell you what i don't want. i don't want to live in a country where it's legal to block websites like it is in iran, china, saudi arabia, sudan, and other oppressive regimes. why can't we have a regulation that protects your constituents' internet freedom? what's the harm in ensuring that no one can block your constituents' ability to access the websites they want to visit? i offered an amendment to this bill that simply tried to ensure that if this resolution of disapproval that we are considering today is enacted into law, broadband providers would not be able to block or interfere with consumers' access to lawful websites. but the way this resolution is written, we are not allowed to offer perfecting amendments. you know, we used to be able to debate net neutrality in a levelheaded way. the no blocking principle is broadly accepted since it was included in the f.c.c.'s 2005 internet policy statement. then controlled by republicans.

that principle has garnered support from both democratic and republican f.c.c. commissioners. chairman michael powell stated at the time that consumers have come to be able to expect to go where they want on high-speed connections. and this was also part of the communications opportunity promotion and enhancement act of 2006, authored by chairman barton at that time. most of my republican colleagues who were there voted in favor of the bill. to close, this resolution gives the green light to broadband providers to block anything, even legal content, on the internet. just like they do in iran. i think consumers should have the choice to go where they want to go and to do what they want to do on the internet. that's why my colleagues should oppose this legislation. i yield back the balance of my time. . the speaker pro tempore: the gentleman yields back his time. the gentleman from oregon. mr. walden: the last time i

checked, the government in iran controls the internet, that's what we're trying to avoid here. i yield two minutes to the gentleman from fle, mr. stearn. the speaker pro tempore: the gentleman is recognized for two minutes. mr. stearns: i always appreciate when the gentleman speaks, it's always humorous, but i think they missed a blatant fact. the f.c.c. has never had the authority to regulate the internet. in fact the comcast decision, the d.c. circuit court in 2010, indicated clearly, the court found that the f.c.c. failed to demonstrate it had authority under title 1, not even title 2 but title 1. so if the d.c. court ruled that way, you'd think you would respect that. they had no jurisdiction to regulate the internet in any form.

as a result, there were rules, more lawsuits would be filed and of course as you know, major telephone company, communication company intends to sue. they stopped their suit because of a technicality but they're going to move forward with it. i'm puzzled why you folks would come down here. i think all of you should realize there's 0 democrats on your side that signed a letter to the f.c.c. in the last congress saying they didn't want the f.c.c. to regulate the internet. why don't you talk about your 60 colleagues who agree with us. so i really think it's a little puzzling why we're down here talking about it and you're getting to the point of saying the f.c.c. is having their authority taken away, they never had it, and the majority a lot of your members agree with us that frankly the f.c.c. should not regulate the internet. this is something that's been going back for three years. there's no surprise.

mr. markey acts like we're bringing this down all of a sudden. we've been working on this when mr. barton was ranking member and i was ranking republican on telecommunications, i sent letters, barton sent letters, almost everyone on telecomplune cases did -- telecommunications did it. i think you try to exploit the idea that we're bringing fresh new legislation down here to control the f.c.c. is wrong. the speaker pro tempore: the gentleman from oregon has 12 minutes remaining. i'm sorry -- the gentlewoman from california has 16 minutes remaining. >> thank you. i would like to add to the debate that the number of democrats that signed the letter that mr. stearns just referenced, that was in opposition to operating under title 2. ms. eshoo: the f.c.c. listened and they went and placed a set

of rules under title 1. i now would like to call on the gentlewoman from california, another distinguished member of the subcommittee, congresswoman doris matsui. for two minutes. the speaker pro tempore: the gentlewoman is recognized for two minutes. ms. matsui: i thank the gentlelady for yielding. i rise in opposition to this resolution. mr. speaker, ahead of a looming potential government shutdown, it is ironic that we are considering this resolution today that would move toward shutting down a free and open internet. on the c.r., my republican colleagues are overreaching and have unfortunately demonstrated an unwillingness to negotiate in good faith with congressional democrats and the president. the resolution before us is an example of the flawed process. under the terms of the congressional review act, resolutions of disapproval are not open to amendment, even for the most basic consumer

protections. during the energy and commerce committee debate, i offered an amendment that would preserve the transparency rule adopted by the f.c.c. as part of the open internet order. requiring broadband providers to make available their network management practices so that consumers and innovators can make informed choices. i offer the aim cement to the rules committee in hopes the majority would make it in order and debate its merits. the transparency rule is the most basic of consume brother texts and is also the least controversial aspect of the rules supported by broadband providers, high tech companies and consumer groups including all six witnesses during a committee hearing on this. yet this resolution will remove this widely accepted practice to protect consumers and innovators as well. mr. speaker, it is unclear how the f.c.c. will be able to address consumer protection issues with respect to

broadband providers if this resolution is enacted. we need to consider these unintended consequences. this resolution is a blunt instrument that risks the future of competition, innovation and open internet. mr. speaker, the f.c.c.'s open internet order brings certainty and clarity to a debate that has consumed this industry for years. it allows internet service and content providers to focus on what they do best, innovate and create jobs. i strongly urge my colleagues to oppose this legislation. i yield back the balance of my time. the speaker pro tempore: the gentlelady yields back. for what purpose does the gentleman from oregon rise? mr. walden: i yield the gentleman gentlelady from tennessee, two minutes. the speaker pro tempore: the gentlelady is recognized for two minutes. mrs. blackburn: i think there's some confusion about house resolution 37 and what it does. my colleagues seem to think this would impact the f.c.c.'s statutory authority and i want to call their attention to the

actual wording of the resolution. it's eight little bitty lines and if you start on line three and begin to read, it says the congress disapproves the rule submitted by the federal communications commission relating to the matter of preserving the open internet and broadband industry practices. now, what this does is to say, we disapprove, if you want to get to the statutory authority, i want to inviolate you to join us in -- i want to invite you to join us in that cushion. you'll have that opportunity, house resolution 96, and it is coming to a committee near you very, very soon. and we look forward to forever prohibiting the overreach of the federal communications commission. let's also be clear on another point that has been misstated. there have never been telephone rules that regulated the

internet. it didn't happen. they were not there. so we need to be certain that those who are listening to us, mr. speaker, realize that never have the federal communications commission, never had the federal government regulated the internet until december 21 when the federal communications commission met. after we had adjourned, the 111th congress and they decided to go where they had no statutory authority to go. they enacted, they enacted they brought the heavy arm of government in and put it on the internet. after these internet service providers spent about $60 billion a year on spectrum, on maintaining this network, i would also remind my colleagues that when the aclu decided they

were going to go in here -- the speaker pro tempore: the gentlelady's time has expired. mrs. blackburn: they couldn't even find enough examples -- there's never been an example of a market failure. i yield back. the speaker pro tempore: the gentlelady's time has expired. ms. eshoo: i'd now like to call on congresswoman lois capps of california for three minutes. the speaker pro tempore: the gentlewoman is recognized for three minutes. mrs. capps: i thank my colleague for yielding time. i rise in strong opposition to this resolution to overturn the f.c.c.'s open internet rules. the public wants us to focus on job creation, yet here we are debating this resolution that would do the exact opposite. it doesn't create jobs, not one. instead it injects uncertainty into our recovering economy. it stifles innovation in our fastest growing industry. the f.c.c. open internet rules ensure americans can utilize all the benefits the internet

provides, creating good-paying head of household jobs along the way. like a government shutdown this resolution will hurt the economy and i can't support that. the public has made it clear, they expect us to cut spending in our c.r. and we will. a deal is very close at hand. but republicans are holding it up at the 11th hour. why? apparently it's not about the money. instead, the holdups are the extraneous, nonbudgetary issues republicans are trying to force into this funding bill like cutting funding for women's health and letting polluters dirty our air. mr. speaker, even republican senator tom coburn, who is nobody's idea of a pushover, has urged his party to drop the policy riders in order to avoid a shutdown. they should listen, mr. speaker. democrats have gone 70% of the way to republican's demands. that's a long way to go in terms of trying to reach a compromise. but republicans are demanding that they either get 100% of

what they want or they'll shut down the government. democrats do not want to shut down the government. we know it would put our economy at risk. right when we've been making progress over the last few months. mr. speaker, the innocent victims of the shutdown are the american people and i share their outrage. >> is the gentlelady addressing the bill before us? that was my parliamentary inquiry. is this germane to the bill before us? the speaker pro tempore: the speaker reminds members they are to remain on the bill. mrs. capps: the resolution before us today is more of the same. it will hobble our efforts to create countless jobs and boost our economy. the resolution shut do you think the f.c.c.'s effort is not the way forward and neither is shutting down the government. i urge the republican leadership to stop playing

these dangerous games and i yield back the balance of my time. the speaker pro tempore: the gentlelady yields back. the gentleman from oregon. mr. walden: i yield two minutes to the gentleman from louisiana, mr. scalise. the speaker pro tempore: the gentleman is recognized for two minutes. mr. scalise: i thank the gentleman from oregon for yielding. i rise in strong support of h.j.res. 37 which prevents the pr federal government from coming in and regulating the internet. if you look at what's happening in washington right now, there's no clearer ion how broken this town is. president obama couldn't pass a budget last year when his party controlled the house, the senate and the white house. which is why we stand here today facing a potential government shutdown, yet the president is going to say he wants the government to run the internet, to have regulations on the internet. my colleagues on the other side talk about these innovations and i love the innovations that have happened over the last few decades. the irony is that all these great innovations have all happened without this government regulation at the -- that the f.c.c. is proposing.

they act as if we're trying to take away the things that allowed the innovations. it's the innovations that happened because the government hasn't figured out how to regulate in a way to pick winners and losers. they rattled off a list of big companies who have done well and want to be the win thers government would protect. what about those small, startup company the small company that's working out of a fwradge right now in california that's going to be the next big idea. but if the government picks winners and losers, we all know who usually are the losers, it's those small startup companies that might never be the great idea of innovation. we've got to be able to protect the next harvard student who is studying at harvard but may be getting ready to drop out and be the next billionaire with a great idea. all those ideas happened without the regulation the f.c.c. is proposing, which is why we need to block them from doing it. look at the innovation in 2000,

less than 5% of homes had broadband internet access. today more than 70% do and it's growing because of over $500 billion of private investment because of the innovation and the job creation that's gone with it. let's protect the jobs and protect the internet's ability without the heavy hand of government picking the winners and losers. i yield back my time. the speaker pro tempore: who seeks recognition? the gentlelady from california. ms. eshoo: mr. speaker, i now would like to recognize the gentleman from the state of washington, mr. jay inslee, for three minutes. is there something wrong with the microphone? we seem to be cutting in and out. the speaker pro tempore: the gentleman will suspend. the chair will be investigating the source of that ruckus. the gentleman is recognized for three minutes. mr. inslee: thank you, mr. speaker. it is deeply disappointing that

instead of being here seeking a bipartisan consensus to avoid a government shutdown, we again are brought to this floor in an effort to engage in this ideological effort to in fact shut down government. yesterday, my republican friends wanted to shut down the ability of uncle sam to protect the freedom of americans to breathe clean air. today, they are attempting to shut down the ability of uncle sam to protect the freedom of americans to get access to the internet. . tomorrow they are attempting to shut down the government so they won't be allowed to protect the freedom of women to get health. we should not be shutting down american's access to an open internet. we should be opening up americans' access and uncle sam's ability to guarantee

americans access to the internet. here's what is at stake. you know, our access to freeways, and freeways are great, just like the internet is great, but it is not so great if powerful economic forces can shut down the on ramps to the freeway. and it's not so great if they can shut down or create a two-tiered system so that if you go to your internet service provider's favorite warehouse store, you get a deal to get access to the freeway. but if you want to go to their competitors, you got to pay extra and you get slower service to get there. this is what is at stake. what the republicans want to do with this resolution is shut down government's ability to prevent these powerful economic forces from making you have a second tier, a substitute, a

secondary access if you don't go to their favorite situation. now, mr. speaker, america has been great because it invented free speech. and it has been great because it has invented an open internet. but both of those freedoms are in jeopardy today because powerful economic interests who are becoming larger and larger in consolidating these internet entities have the ability now to start choking up -- off consumers' access to the internet. for those who want to say, oh, it's not a problem, we cannot wait until this horse is out of the barn, it will be too late. this is not just a consumer's issue. it is a business development issue. it is small businesses who today want to create these small businesses that want to have people get access to their businesses.

and they don't have the powerful clout to sign these big megamillion dollar deals with internet service providers to give them a leg up. mr. speaker, reject this issue to shut down government's ability to provide freedom in the internet. preserve open internet. reject this bill. the speaker pro tempore: the gentleman's time has expired. the chair would ask -- the chair would ask that we suspend use of that microphone until we figure out the problem. the gentleman from oregon. mr. walden: i point out two things, mr. speaker, when you have government-run microphones and it net you can have a problem. and second we are for open and free microphones. they can use our podium. i yield to the gentleman from georgia, mr. gingrey. the speaker pro tempore: the gentleman from georgia -- >> it appears the only microphone not working on is on the democratic side in this republican controlled house of representatives. the speaker pro tempore: the gentleman is recognized for two minutes. mr. gingrey: it is with some trepidation i come before this government regulated

microphone, but i do come in strong supports of this resolution. i would like to commend the chairman of the subcommittee on communications and technology, mr. walden, for his leadership. to prevent the f.c.c. from implementing regulations on the internet. as a member of the subcommittee, i'm proud to be a co-sponsor of h.j.res. 37 because i believe that it is absolutely necessary that we invoke the congressional review act to nullify the implementation of net neutrality. because it will negatively impact our economy. it is time that we rein in the f.c.c. under this current leadership and ensure the continued growth of internet without the handcuffs of net neutrality. mr. speaker, the sole reason the internet has been able to grow unfettered is due to the absence of unnecessary regulation. i fear that the f.c.c.'s so-called open internet order will stifle innovation and investment and it will prevent continued job creation within the broadband industry.

unfortunately the f.c.c. has chosen to act without quantifiable statistics about the need for such regulation. in fact, the f.c.c.'s order the commission admitted it conducted no, i repeat no market analysis on the demonstration of any actual problem rather than mere speculation. in our subcommittee hearing with all five f.c.c. commissioners on february 16, commissioner mcdowell testified that this order is not necessary, it will cause more harm for the industry than it will prevent and the f.c.c. does not have the authority to move forward on this order. he's not alone in this analysis. former f.c.c. chairman william kennard who was appointed by president clinton said back in 1999 that the deregulatory competitive approach has led to the innovation of the internet that now benefits our country. as my colleagues have pointed out. mr. speaker, this is precisely why we are here today. i'm reminded of the famous line

in william shakes fear's the tempest, he wrote, what's past is prologue. our policy of deregulation of the internet has yielded tremendous benefits and growth and i strongly believe the f.c.c. order will undermine that growth over the past 15 years. i yield back. the speaker pro tempore: the gentleman's time has expired. for what purpose does the gentlelady from california rise? ms. eshoo: mr. speaker, first i'd like to say that this charge about the f.c.c. failing to conduct an adequate market power and cost benefit analysis has been stated and restated ad nauseam. the f.c.c. fully reviewed the competitiveness of broadband internet access markets and and analyzed cost benefits of adopting open internet rules. secondly, the republican witness that came before the committee very comfortably spoke about blocking netflix.

if anyone questions whether consumers are at stake here and what could happen, they should just look to that record. i now would like to inquire how much time we have on our side and then call on the gentleman from ohio, mr. kucinich, for two minutes. the speaker pro tempore: the gentlewoman has eight minutes to control. the gentleman from oregon has six minutes. mr. eshoo: i would like to call on mr. kucinich of ohio for two minutes. the speaker pro tempore: the gentleman from ohio is recognized for two minutes. mr. kucinich: i just want to comment on my friend from georgia's scholarly mention of a quote from shakes spear and the tell best. i, too, was thinking of the tempest, perhaps in a different line, not necessarily related to these proceedings. but you just sparked this the line from the tempest that says, hell is empty. all the devils are here.

s.j.res. 37 undercuts the authority and the mandate of the f.c.c. during an era of increasing consolidation in the telecommunications industry. the f.c.c. order gives the wired and wireless broadband industry too much leeway to exercise, quote, reasonable, unquote, management of the internet. the f.c.c. order should explicitly forbid such practices as paid prioritization, a technique where i.s.p.'s funnel users to one type of content over another simply because that site or service moves faster instead of a mere pledge to monitor broadband development. the f.c.c. ought to be sending the strongest possible message to internet service providers that the physical infrastructure and foundation of the internet from which they reap immense profit was created by the american taxpayer. instead of telling the f.c.c. that there should be no net neutrality rules, we should be

sending the f.c.c. back to the drawing board with a message that the f.c.c. should be more vigilant in protecting net neutrality, not less. keep the internet open, and keep government open. otherwise we may have succeeded in communicating that the opposite of progress is congress. yield back. the speaker pro tempore: the gentleman yields back. the gentleman from oregon. mr. walden: thank you, mr. speaker. i now yield a minute to the gentleman from, mr. kinzinger. the speaker pro tempore: the gentleman is recognized for one minute. mr. kinzinger: thank you, mr. speaker. this is a big shocker. i'm new here. being about 86 new people on my side. i watched last year as i was running for office to represent the 11th district of illinois, i watched as this house failed to produce a budget which is why we are where we are today, but i also watched as this body, the democrat controlled

body, attempted to implement net neutrality through kind of a legislative process but failed to garner enough votes. they didn't. that's fine. that's good. everybody's got a right to do that. this is the people's house. but what happens if you are unable to do that through a legislative process? why not call a regulatory agency and do it by fiat. ladies and gentlemen, the f.c.c. and a whole host of other government regulatory agencies have acted outside of the will of the people. it is high time that the regulatory agencies do what their job is which is to regulate not to legislate. we were sent here in november to stand up and say the will of the people will be respected in the house of representatives and the will of the people will be respected by the federal government. the speaker pro tempore: the gentleman's time has expired. who seeks time and recognition? the gentlelady from california. ms. eshoo: mr. speaker, i now would like to recognize for two

minutes the distinguished ranking member of the house appropriations committee, mr. dicks, from the state of washington. the speaker pro tempore: the gentleman is recognized for two minutes. mr. dicks: i am -- i ask unanimous consent to revise and extend my remarks. the speaker pro tempore: without objection. mr. dicks: i have one major question, that is why are we considering h.j.res. 37 when we are on the verge of shutting down the house of representatives. i hope and i think a deal is very close at hand. but republicans are holding it up at the 11th hour over divisive social policy that should not be a part of this debate. republicans should not hold the government hostage using controversial social policy as ransom. republicans are especially focusing on divisive changes to women's health policy.

the speaker pro tempore: reminded remain relevant to the subject matter before us. mr. dicks: i think the relevance is why are we here working on this piece of legislation at this time when we are on the verge of a crisis -- mr. walden: would the gentleman yield? mr. dicks: i will yield. mr. walden: i'm not part of that norbleting team and i don't think you are or ms. eshoo is. mr. dicks: reclaiming my time. reclaiming my time. the speaker pro tempore: the gentleman reclaims his time. mr. dicks: this is an important day. and what we are saying is -- on our side is we want to enact a clean continuing resolution at some point today so that we can take care of our troops, so that we can move forward with the process. and protect ourselves and i hope we can do it in the

context of an agreement between the president, between the leader of the other body, and the speaker of the house. if that is done, then this will be a good day. but taking up h.j.res. to kind of do as a filler to me it doesn't make sense. i yield back my time. the speaker pro tempore: the gentleman yields back. the gentleman from oregon. mr. walden: mr. chairman -- mr. speaker, i now yield two minutes to the gentleman from virginia, mr. goodlatte. the speaker pro tempore: the gentleman from virginia is recognized for two minutes. mr. goodlatte: i thank the chairman for yielding and for his leadership on this issue. i ask unanimous consent to revise and extend my remarks. the speaker pro tempore: without objection. mr. goodlatte: to the gentleman from washington, i will tell him that yesterday this house voted to cut government spending and keep the government open. today this house will vote to cut government regulations and keep the internet open. that's what this is all about. let me add that to the gentleman from pennsylvania who said that all the f.c.c. is making two simple promises,

here they are. 200 pages, single spaced, small print, to make two simple promises to keep the internet open. guess what? the internet is open now. and we have laws to protect keeping the internet open now. they are called antitrust laws. and if they need to be modified, they should come forward with those proposals. but the internet is opened today. and to my friends in the technology community, and they are my friends, some of whom think that this is a great thing the f.c.c. is doing, i would say to them, be careful what you ask for because these 200 pages are just the beginning. there will be thousands of pages more as they illegally try to blast their way into regulating the most valuable invention in the history of the world. that is what is going on here. and to the gentlewoman from california who says that there

is a market power analysis, i refer her to page 12 of the very f.c.c. regulations that say, and i quote, we are not performing a market power analysis in this proceeding. quote-unquote. this issue is very, very important. the internet is based upon free enterprise. it is based upon individual initiative and creativity. it is not based upon government regulation and government regulation will stifle it and ultimately stuff it out. if you want proof of that, go look at government regulated internets in other countries around the world like china and iran. that is not what this country is about and we are about protecting the greatest job creator that we have ever made in this country. support this resolution. the speaker pro tempore: the gentleman's time has expired. mr. goodlatte: oppose the naysayers. the speaker pro tempore: the gentleman's time has expired. .

the gentlewoman from california. ms. eshoo: i'd like to respond to my good friend, mr. goodlatte. he is a good friend. this is not necessary. if there were a case to be made other than those that have come to the floor today, it would have been made in testimony by the people that are the very stake holders in all of these businesses. and that's why i started out today by saying i don't believe the republicans have a case, a leg to stand on, because all of the companies, small, medium, and large, even the largest broadband providers in the country, consumer advocates, religious organizations, it's the broadest, deepest coalition i have seen in recent history of the committee. who are all opposed to what you are doing. you're having a wonderful conversation with yourselves

but frankly it's not doing anything for anyone else. this is about protecting consumers and there have been cases, case after case, at the f.c.c., where abuses were committed in terms of blocking and many other things. so this side is for protecting and understands what an open and free internet is. i now would like to yield -- how much time do we have remaining, mr. speaker? the speaker pro tempore: the gentlelady has three minutes remaining. ms. eshoo: i'd like to yield one minute to mr. waxman, the ranking member of the full committee. the speaker pro tempore: the gentleman is recognized. mr. waxman: i was astounded by our comment on the other side of the aisle by the gentleman not on our committee, he said the antitrust laws will protect us. if you have a cable company or a phone company to choose, you're going to choose one or the other.

let's say the cable company has its own list of special programs that they want people to purchase. they can easily stop netflix. they can easily stop competitive programming. that is not an antitrust violation that is a business opportunity. and what these rules propose to do is not give anybody a business opportunity to deny the consumer the ability to access anything on the web, which is the case today. these rules -- these rule that we see the f.c.c. doing are being put into place to make sure that somebody does not take advantage of the power that they have in the market. we do that all the time. we regulate the securities agencies with the s.e.c. because we don't want them to run amok. i wish the s.e.c. had acted to

stop the economy from going over the cliff, practically speaking. the speaker pro tempore: the gentleman's time has expired. mr. waxman: we need to defeat this republican proposal. it's not based on anything but an ideological point of view that government can do nothing right and business can to nothing wrong and they therefore favor the big businesses. so i will not yield because i don't have any more time left but i say do not vote for this republican proposal. it is not something that any constituency wants, it would confuse the situation. it would make life uncertain for all the players, stake holders and others and would deny the consumer the freedom they now have. the speaker pro tempore: the gentleman's time has expired. the gentleman from oregon. mr. walden: mr. speaker, it's evident there's confusion on their side of the aisle. at one end they have a speaker saying, we're doing the bidding of the big oligarchies, these

big companies and on the other hand, those companies oppose what we're doing. i'm trying to figure out which side they're on. we're for an open internet that is vibrant as it is today because it's not regulated by the government. i now yield one minute to the gentleman from florida. the speaker pro tempore: the gentleman is recognized for one minute. >> the supporters of this resolution, including myself -- mr. diaz-balart: the supporters of this resolution, myself included, believe the internet has been innovative and creative. the administration, however, believes the federal bureaucracy can do a much better job running the internet so therefore they are proceeding to regulate the internet. so here's the bottom line, mr. speaker. if you believe that the federal government bureaucracy should regulate, i.e., should run the net, because they can do better, vote against this.

however, if you believe the internet does a pretty good job and the federal bureaucrats' hands should be again kept out of the internet, then you would vote yes for the resolution. it's frankly just that simple. i yield back. the speaker pro tempore: the gentleman yields back. the gentlelady from california. ms. eshoo: how much time do we have remaining? the speaker pro tempore: both sides have one and a half minutes remaining. ms. eshoo: i yield the remainder of our time to the distinguished gentleman from massachusetts, mr. markey. the speaker pro tempore: the gentleman is recognized for a minute and a half. mr. markey: the microphone in the well on the democratic side is shut down so i will use the microphone on the republican side. i will say to the republicans that we already have rules that govern the internet, that are passed but this -- through this congress they deal with education, they deal with privacy they deal with intellectual property they deal with global internet governance

and network security. they deal with pornography. they deal with taxation of items on the internet, they deal with protection for the deaf and blind on the internet. we do have rules on the internet. don't pretend for a second that we don't. let me give you another lesson from adam smith in the wealth of nations. he said the member of parliament who supports every proposal for strengthening the monopoly is sure to acquire not only the reputation of understanding trade, but great popularity and influence with an order of men whose numbers and wealth render them of great importance. if he opposes them on the contrary and still more if he has the authority to thwart them, neither the most acknowledged probity nor the greatest rank nor the greatest public services can protect him from the most infamous abuse and detraction from perm insults or sometimes from real danger arising from the outrage of furious monopolists.

adam smith listed monopolies and oligopolys were the greatest threat to the nation. we want to make sure the internet is open to every entrepreneur, the tens of thousands of them reating wealth and opportunities, creating jobs and the open communication that has revolutionized our world. in iran it is legal to shut down the internet. in china, it is legal to shut down the internet. the speaker pro tempore: the gentleman's time has expired. mr. markey: it is legal there to shut down the internet. the speaker pro tempore: the gentleman's time has expired. the gentleman from oregon is recognized. mr. walden: a question on time. have they used -- the speaker pro tempore: one and a half minutes, the other side had no time remaining. you have a minute and a half. mr. walden: i will use the remainder of our time to close. it's interesting that the last speaker pointed out that in

iran and china, they can shut down the internet. that's because the government controls the internet. that's what republicans are trying to stop from happening here in part because we think it's wrong, in part because we know that the f.c.c. does not have the legal authority to take this action, that's why we're doing that. beyond that, it's a bad economic decision. we had a harvard m.b.a. testify before our committee that over time, and i quote, the order represents a direct transfer of wealth from broadband access providers to those whose content rides over the network. that means it provides those who ride the network with a strategically vital financial network to use against broadband providers who are against -- who are their competitors. this is picking winners and losers. they don't want to extend net neutrality rules to search engines and others who ride on the network. they want to pick the winner and loser. they are siding with big companies in this case. we are the ones who are siding

on the side of keeping the internet open and free as it is today that has allowed it to flourish and grow, allowed incredible technology and innovation to take place. we want an open and unfettered from government regulation in terms of the management of the internet and further, further, we do not believe that the f.c.c. has the legal authority to regulate in this area. when they've attempted this before, the d.c. circuit court has said, you did not prove f.c.c. that you have legal authority and struck them down. and if they are able to get authority using section 706, it may well have opened the door to every state regulator in the country. the speaker: the gentleman's time has expired. mr. walden: i yield back. the speaker pro tempore: all time for debate has expired. pursuant to house resolution 200 the previous question is ordered. the question is on engrossment and third reading. those in favor say aye. those opposed, no.

in the opinion of the chair the noes visit. third reading. the clerk: the speaker pro tempore: did the parliamenttarian -- >> parliamentary inquiry. the clerk: with respect to regulating the internet and broadband industry practices. the speaker pro tempore: for what purpose does the gentleman from maryland rise? >> mr. speaker, i have a motion at the desk. the speaker pro tempore: is the gentleman opposed to the bill. >> mr. hoyer: i am opposed to the bill in its present form. the speaker pro tempore: the gentleman qualifies. >> point of order. the speaker pro tempore: a point of order is reserved. the clerk will report the motion. the clerk: mr. hoyer of maryland moves to recommit the joint resolution, house joint resolution 37 to the committee on energy and commerce with instructions to report the same back to the house forthwith with the following amendment, page two after line eight, insert the following, section

two -- >> i ask unanimous consent to consider it as read. the speaker pro tempore: is there oklahoma? without objection, the gentleman is recognized for five minutes. mr. hoyer: i appreciate that, and i thank mr. walden for the time, i know he could have precluded that. we heard on the floor about the americans who would suffer thesques of ea a government shutdown. a shutdown means slower economic growth and fewer job a weakened housing market, delayed pay for our military family, delayed benefits for our veterans, unanswered social security questions for our seniors an more. republicans are holding these government services hostage. let me repeat that. the republicans are holding those services hostage. it turns out that their ransom

demand is the passage of divisive social policy because mr. and mrs. america know, my colleagues, and mr. speaker, that we have got an agreement on numbers. we've got an agreement on how much to cut. a compromise. henry clay said, to compromise is to govern. we cannot govern if we do not come to agreement. but we haven't come to agreement now. democrats have proven more than willing to compromise. we met republicans more than halfway. only to find out that republicans cannot stand up to the most extreme in their party who demand that we have an agreement on a social policy totally unrelated to the deficit. totally unrelated to a deficit. we're still hopeful that members of both of our parties can put their responsibility to the american people first.

come to a compromise and keep the government open for the people it serves. to give that work the time it noods, i urge my colleagues for a clean, one-week spending bill. a bridge to keep the government functioning into next week. that's what this motion will do. it's very simple. it'll keep our defense structure intact. make sure that our people on the front line in harm's way get paid. make sure that every other government official that is serving the american people stays on the job to do just that. it is free of divisive social policy. it contains no partisan measures, it will ensure that our troops are taken care of and paid on time. unlike the partisan, divisive, one-week extension passed by the republicans, it can and will become law. those members who understand that we must compromise in order to govern i think will

support this one-week bridge and support this motion to recommit. let's, mr. speaker, let me say to you that i had the privilege of being on television with your whip. the majority whip. a friend of mine. his assertion was that, well, we voted for some of these policies when george bush was president. i didn't agree with those policies but i allowed them to stay in the bill. why? because i knew i had to compromise. i knew the american public elected a republican president that disagreed with me and i knew i needed to keep the government running because i had a responsibility to the american public to do so. i had a responsibility to the service members to do so, and so, yes, i compromised, that is all this resolution is asking of all of you, you have a president of our country, is he a democrat? he is. but he is elected by the people of the united states and he disagrees with your provision.

just as george bush agreed with it. but when we were in charge, we did not shut down the government because of that disagreement, we understood that the american public expected us to compromise and come to an agreement. this motion to recommit, if passed, will allow you to do that and keep government open. we've now been debating for almost two hours under the rule and during the course of this debate, an amendment that will make no difference to the american public tomorrow. this motion to recommit will make all the difference to america tomorrow. it is the difference between keeping the government open and shutting it down in just a little more than -- a little less than nine hours from now. i ask each of our colleagues, republican and democrat, conservative and liberal, east, west, north and south, support

this motion to recommit. it is the responsible, effective way to do what so many of you said you want to do and that is to keep this government functioning for the american people, continue to give it stability and, if i might add, that you criticize us for creating uncertainty. i think that was an apt criticism, my colleagues on the republican side, that certainty is important in our economy. nothing will create more uncertainty than defeating this motion to recommit. the speaker pro tempore: the gentleman's time has expired. mr. hoyer: i urge its adoption and i yield back, mr. speaker, the balance of my time. mr. walden: i continue to reserve my point of order. the speaker pro tempore: the gentleman is recognized for five minutes. mr. walden: thank you, mr. speaker. to my dear friend and colleague from maryland, i'm actually surprised he has the time to

come to the floor given the status of negotiations, i'm sure, that are taking place as we speak. i appreciate him coming to the floor. let me make a couple of points. first of all, the continuing resolution they put forward in this context is more of the status quo spending that just keeps government going. we're saying, no, we got to do better than that for the american people. we need to reduce wasteful washington spending, we need to create jobs in the private sector. we came here to cut back on the deficit and not put an ever-increasing, intolerable, unsustainable, frankly, immoral budget deficit on the next generation. our kids and our grandkids. we didn't come here to do that. we came here to cut spending. mr. hoyer: could my friend yield so i can correct? mr. walden: i have not yielded. mr. hoyer: let me correct the statement. it does cut the $51 billion we have already agreed to. mr. walden: i appreciate that. the point here, though, is

this, we would not be here today if the democrats in the last congress had bothered to take up a budget and pass it or even vote on it. it's the first time since the 1974 budget act was put in law that i believe the house didn't consider a budget. it's not the house and senate have always agreed on a budget but at least they always voted on a budget. and the democrats under speaker pelosi and my friend from maryland could not bring or did not bring a budget to the house floor for even consideration in the house. now, i was in small business for 22 years. i served on various boards and all. if you fail to bring a budget and pass a budget at the city council, county commission, corporation, you'd be tossed out. but in the congress, well, i guess they did get tossed out in november but they didn't do a budget. and then you didn't fund the government through the fiscal year we're in today. you only funded it into march. then it was left on our doorstep when we took the

majority to finish. it's not the first time that's happened. and it's happened over time. we came in and said, ok, we won. we assume the responsibility to govern. and we passed a continuing resolution to fund the government through the rest of this fiscal year. would have funded our troops, everything else and cut $61 billion in spending and that still resides in that agust body across the capitol where they can't seem to act. when that didn't work we came back with another continuing resolution to cut $2 billion a week. that resolution was passed in this house. i think with bipartisan support. went to the senate, was passed there, signed by the president. we continued to negotiate because we're not here to shut down the government. we're here to cut the government spending and get back to earning a balanced budget and create jobs in the private sector. we maffed another continuing resolution. we cut more, another $2 billion

a week. we're up to 10. that passed this house. it went over to the senate. it became law. and then when we could get nothing else back from the senate, yesterday we brought forward a resolution to make sure our men and women in uniform who are fighting for our freedom across this globe and their families here at home would get paid through the end of this fiscal year and we also cut spending. we cut the spending we cut in the first resolution that's still residing in the senate where they can't act and we sent that over to the senate where it sits. now, the first thing we hear from the president, i'm going to veto it. the senate says, oh, we can't take that up. well, why not? we passed it here. we did so in a bipartisan way. and it's over there. republicans have acted responsibly to the will of the american people. we have said time and again we will govern and we will govern

responsibly. there's no blank check here any more. we will follow the rules. that's why i'm insisting on my reservation of point of order because we're not going to violate the house rules. the motion is not in order because it violates clause 7, as i'm sure the gentleman from maryland knows, of rule 16 of the rules of the house. it's not germane to the resolution before us. so, mr. speaker, i insist on my point of order. the speaker pro tempore: does any other member wish to speak on the point of order? mr. hoyer: mr. speaker, i wish to speak on the point of order. the speaker pro tempore: the gentleman from maryland is recognized. mr. hoyer: mr. speaker, congressman allen west, newly elected republican from south carolina, said, quote, i'm disgusted at the perception that leaders in my own party are now using the men and women in uniform to pass a short-term budget bill. that was a newly elected

republican, former member of the armed forces of the united states. my point being this, mr. speaker, this resolution speaks directly to keeping the government of the united states operating for the next seven days, keeping our men and women in the armed forces paid for that week, making sure that every other necessary service for government is available to the american people for the next seven days and it is the only vehicle that now appears to be viable to accomplish that objective. and as a result, mr. speaker, i believe this is not only in order, it is imperative, that we pass this motion to recommit. i want the speaker to find it in order. the speaker pro tempore: the chair is prepared to rule. the gentleman from oregon makes a point of order that the instructions included in the motion to recommit proposed an amendment not germane to the joint resolution.

clause 7 of rule 16, the germaneness rule, provides that no proposition on the subject different from that under consideration shall be admitted. the instructions contained in the motion to recommit address continuing -- continue appropriations for the fiscal year 2011, a different subject matter. accordingly, the amendment proposed in the motion to recommit is not germane. the point of order is sustained. the point of order is -- the motion is not in order. for what purpose does the gentleman from maryland rise? mr. hoyer: i urge appeal of the ruling. the speaker pro tempore: the question is shall the decision chair as judgment of the house.

>> we have available for your all online at c-span.org. you can read the latest budget proposals and analysis. you can see how you are represented voted on related short-term extension, all available for you at c-span.org. senator barbara mikulski said that republicans want to push a radical agenda against

that the debate over programs are throwing women and children under the bus. ongoing 2011 budget negotiations. about 35 minutes and we do women will be speaking with reporters. try and have that for you later today as well. >> that afternoon. the democratic women of the afternoon express our anger and disappointment that after weeks told that the of funding for this government's was about budget cuts and deficits and spending. well, now we find out at the the that that what it is about. it is about funding for women's health care. left is about care, and that is is now about.

we are here to say that we are be allowed -- not use women as pawns debate when this country is waiting to move on. across the country, thousands of about the economy, they are worried about jobs, the budget deficits, and the future. but they are not worried about not their young daughter or the woman next door to preventive she needs it. we are not going to allow that to be taken away. we will stand strong and we that women's be upon in this debate. this is extremely important. 5 million american women depend these healthcare services. you'll hear from my women themselves about how this money is used in really important ways. what is so offensive is that of debates about

cuts, and these are tough that we are going to be , that is not what it is about. about cutting women's , and that makes me extremely -- that to me is extremely offensive. i am going to turn it over to senator barbara mikulski, who for women time and time again. been a beacon of light, stand strong with all of us today. we face the terrible lose their paycheck, hundreds of thousands , and jeopardize in an torpedoing the economy, we are headed for the of the

over money, not because debate over cuts, but continue push a radical against women. one of the most upstanding and how to achieve a more frugal government. is that the funding of planned parenthood. of planned parenthood. what does reduces the opportunities for women. it does not reduce federal spending. so we are opposing that, just as have fought their radical agenda. what is so troubling is, the democrats have made significant steps and compromises on the money. we are now 75% at where they wanted to cut the budget.

cut, and we made cuts in their terrain, taking it out of discretionary funding. go is eliminating health care for women. mistake, this entire has included throwing women and children under the bus. plan plan parenthood in my state. planned parenthood in my state. a lot of it was spent on preventive health care. it ranges from cholesterol diabetic management. story, the story i am going to tell agenda by

the republicans. they are not only going after in the planned parenthood defunding. did in one, they cut funding for care by $50 million -- hr-1. then they want to defund health care in general. we had that fight when they take our mammograms away from us. take our mammograms they want to take prenatal care away from us, they want to take our counseling, the family planning , and we just say no. said they want to be adults. welcome an adult conversation. i have been waiting for days, weeks, and month. if you can find an adult over there, i am happy to meet with them.

having said that, but would like over now to another women and also a champion for trying to find a forward in this very tough negotiations. from california, senator dianne feinstein. -- the senior senator from california. >> i cannot believe it. the united states shuts down, enormous dislocation, enormous hurt to people. -- 177,000 federal workers, including postal workers and . as chairman of the intelligence you there thousands, tens of thousands contractors. ran into one the other people working and we are going to be shut down.

there is a whole part of this been made -- that is going to be astronomically hurtful to the states -- to the united states. is this over? is over women's health. been agreed to. it is an opportunity for the the house to it to women. i don't usually use this but i really believe this is true. is the fact. cannot be spent abortions, except in the instances of the life of the mother or rape and incest. what they are very crafty about is aiming for the broader programs where some of the private dollars may go for services, but the bulk other dollars go for preventive health care. more than 90% of the care provided by planned parenthood

preventive. this means affordable contraception for 2.5 million patients. nearly 1 million cervical cancer screenings, 830,000 breast exams, and four million tests treatment for sexually transmitted infections, including an half-million hiv test. what the government should be doing. the services provide the , including education, screening, annual exams, s t d and hiv testing, smoking cessation, flu vaccines, and well baby care. $581 million in public funds in 2008. title 10 programs provided 400 abortions

in 2008 alone. 86,000 of those alone were california, and they want to shut it down. how does this make sense? these cuts are biased, they are motivated, they hurt women, and we, the women in the not let it happen. just remember, 12 hours to shut down, and what is at stake is amount of cuts. it is the ability of american women to get health care service. and now, i would like to introduce my great friend and colleague, senator barbara boxer. a shutdown, and i was reminded the that when a shutdown occurs, a lot of people don't

realize where the hurt is. >> live coverage here on c-span. >> we just lost, unfortunately, one more opportunity to keep the country being served by the government. we are now waiting to see what will happen next. my understanding, from almost all the parties involved is that we have reached agreement on a number. we have reached agreement on cutting spending. frankly, we democrats have gone 70% of the way toward making a compromise with our republican colleagues. it seems the that is more than halfway. the only thing that seems to be hanging us up now is the president has made it very clear, he is not going to cut

services for women's health. that seems to be the issue that is stopping putting the government back in action, serving the american people after the night tonight. i am hopeful that we can reach agreement, and we are certainly working toward that end. >> do you know of any other talks are plans tonight with the president? >> i think talks are ongoing by staff as we speak. >> how involved dark house democratic leaders? >> i think the leadership office of speaker is involved. i think his death is involved. -- his staff is involved, and the president is involved. those are the party's most intimately involved in these talks. >> the question we have all been asking, why is it that harry

reid says there is agreement on spending, and the speaker says there is not? >> frankly, my supposition is both are accurate. what harry reed believes is that there has been an agreement on a number that would be acceptable. the speaker believes that until there is an agreement on all items, there is not an agreement on any item. so i think both are correct in that sense. >> will the cuts be mandatary? >> i don't know the answer to that. i think from what senator reed tells me, what i believe, there is generally a number for cuts that would be part of an agreement where an agreement could be reached. >> title 10 itself, whether the

money might be block granted or operate in direct funding from the federal government. is that under discussion? >> i have not been in the discussion, so i don't want to characterize them particularly, other than to say the president has made it very clear that he does not want to undermine health services for women under title 10. i think the president -- i don't want to speak for him, but it is my view that that probably would be inconsistent with what he thinks ought to be our policy. i want to say something on this. the answer is yes. i want to make it clear. i have made it clear to a number of people, have said on the floor. we had these kind of differences between president bush and the democrats who control the congress of the united states. never once did we shut down the government. we understood that the american

people elected an american president who disagree with some of our thoughts. we had to come to agreement. we had to come to compromise if the government was to work properly, not because we liked a particular provision, but because we knew that you have to accommodate both sides and come to a compromise. a compromise clearly implying and meaning and being that you don't get 100%. we have moved a long, long way, because we agree that we need to cut spending, get spending under control. we have come 70% of the way and more towards agreeing with what the republicans said their initial objective was, and that was to cut spending. we have done that. at no time that i heard during the debate in the campaign was that we will cut spending if the president will agree with some of our social policies. that was never part of the

debate. we ought to move on now that we have come very close to an agreement on numbers. get a continuing resolution, so this country will not be put at risk of having the economy damaged, jobs lost, and people not served. >> based on what you know and assuming that the president will win the title 10 issue, how many democrats will be able to support that in the end? >> i don't know the answer to that question because i do not know the contents of the agreement. until i know the contents of the agreement, i have some general idea, but i really do need to know what the construction of the agreement will be. >> do you feel comfortable with that was the title 10 issue is resolved? >> i understand, i have not seen the contents of the specific cuts that will be included to get to the 70% number that is

being discussed. as a result, until i know what the contents are, it is difficult to say what the number is. i have said to mr. boehner that i think we can be comfortable, we will like the number, we think it will hurt the economy and job creation, the president's commission on deficit reduction said that we needed to go much more slowly than the republicans want to go in order not to undercut a fragile but recovering economy, a slowly growing economy, but nevertheless growing. and still i see the contents of that, i cannot make a judgment on that. but i think we will be able to. i'm hopeful that we can pass something through the house. thank you.

democratic whip steny hoyer at 4:00 eastern time. eight hours until the current year fiscal spending bill runs out at midnight tonight. friday, april 8. we certainly will likely hear more from democratic leaders and republican leaders into the night. the majority leader in the senate, harry reid, said earlier today that there has been an agreement on cuts. $38 billion in cuts. but both i and senate floor speeches, house floor speeches, and public statements of democrats and republicans, the differences boil down to republicans calling for democrats to pass that one-week stopgap spending bill, and democrats saying that the one thing standing in the way is the effort to cut money from planned parenthood. now, we will take you live back to the capital to hear some republican women in the house that just came in for a news conference live on c-span. >> fiscal debate right now over

the future of this great country and how we can save it for our children and grandchildren. four months ago, i gave birth to a little girl. like every child in america right now, she is born knowing $45,000. the projections are in the next 10 years, her share of the national debt will double to $90,000. -- she is born owing $45,000. no mother runs a budget this way, and neither should the federal government. the fact is none of us want a government shutdown, but the time has come for us to have an adult conversation about what we need to do to get this debt under control. with me today aer -- are my fellow women republicans from the house, and they will all share a little perspective with you. >> i am from west virginia. i want to reiterate what was just said. none of us want a government shutdown. what we want and what the argument is -- it is about

spending. there is nothing more important to the help of my granddaughter who is going to be one next week, my daughter, and every woman in america, then good, sound fiscal policy where the women of america and men of america are not swallowed up by huge deficit. to me, that is about as healthy -- that is about helping america, healthy women, and about the future for our children and grandchildren. >> i'm from the state of illinois, probably one of the most bankrupt states. we have to get all of the -- get the states come get the country back on track. we are facing an economic disaster in the next few years. we have one, two, three -- maybe four years before we will reach the tipping point. we cannot shut down the

government. we have to continue to push for economic growth and create jobs, and we will not do that by shutting down the government. we have to move forward now, and we have to cut the spending, cut the spending, cut the spending. this is what this is all about. it is not about some other issue that those in the senate and those on the other side keep talking about. what is on the table is how we are going to cut the spending. we cannot spend the money that we do not have. we have to allow people to be able to have the money in their pocket to increase the economy. >> good afternoon. i'm from alabama's second district. i just wanted to mention to you my two children, margaret and george. that is what this debate is about. the state that we leave this country in for our children.

we have a responsibility to make it better. it is about cutting spending. it is about the next generation, not about the next election. >> time from cincinnati, ohio -- i'm from cincinnati, ohio. every day, mothers and fathers sit around a kitchen table and decide what kind of money they have for their families. with the rising price in gasoline, they are finding their paychecks smaller and smaller, and they have to make tough decisions on how they are going to feed their families. that is the decision we have to make here. as we sit around our kitchen table in each chamber of the house, what are we going to do about this looming debt and deficit? the american public expects us to do the same thing they do every single day, and that is cut the unnecessary spending in washington.

that is what this debate is about, and that is what it needs to be about. i believe that both sides will come to the realization that what is best for the health of our nation is to stop the unnecessary spending and do it now. >> hello. i am from north carolina. mothers across my district have been calling our office, dealing with these issues that we are faced with right now. they are very worried about the fact that the government is going to shut down. back home, in their own budgets, they have been trying to cut as much as possible. they have been trying to provide for their families, trying to provide for their futures. now, we are faced with this shutdown, and we have military wives wondering how they will be able to feed their children throughout the next week's -- weeks if military are cut off.

the senate needs to pass hr1. it needs to do it today. the issue is the spending. we need to come to an agreement and but that's certainty back -- come toans' lives an agreement and get that certainty back into americans' lives. i will remain in this fight, and we will all fight together. as you can see, this group of conservative women have come out to speak to clarify this situation. thank you. >> we are going to double up on north carolina. i think what the public has learned is that republicans are being responsible. we have presented the facts to the american people. the american people deserve to

know the facts we have presented them, and they understand that we are in a fiscal crisis and that we have to cut wasteful washington spending, and we need to do it now. we are unified in doing that, and it is the issue before us and it is the issue that we are going to deal with. >> and the congressman from the middle tennessee -- i am the congressman from middle tennessee. the reason i'm here today was a family decision, and that came because of two things. one is because i am a grandmother. i ask my children and husband -- what do you think? is it time for me to go to congress and fight, as i have fought in tennessee, to fight to make sure that we have a smaller government that spends the taxpayers' dollars well, and gets us out of this terrible

debt that we are in, that is going to take a chance of leaving our grandchildren in a place where they will not know the united states that my husband and i grew up knowing, with all of the opportunities? as a small business person, i know what this reckless spending and the amount of taxes does to a business. it does not help to create jobs. what i have heard throughout my district is, "go out there and fight for the small businessmen and women and get this spending under control. decrease regulations and stop the taxes so that we can bring this country back to the fiscal economy we have had in the past." you do that by cutting spending. i'm proud to stand here with my colleagues to say to the senate, "get your act together." we have given your of your opportunities to cut the spending and get this country on the right track.

>> i am from wyoming. yesterday, we sent to the senate a bill that would fund our troops so the men and women and their families who are making great sacrifices for this country would know that through the end of the fiscal year, they would have the money they need. we also sent over $12 billion in cuts, and an issue on d.c. abortion that democrats have supported in the past. these are all things the democrats have supported in the past. yesterday, the president called that a distraction. since when are america's fighting men and women a distraction? that was a major piece of legislation for the house to pass in a way that gets us down the road, and it was rejected out of hand by the president. today, democrats in the senate are trying to characterize or mischaracterized these

discussions as about women's health. they are not about women's health. it is about economic health, the economic health of our nation, and we will continue to fight for the deepest spending cuts that we can get to defend the economic health of this nation. >> i am from california, and i would like to say what an honor it is to be up here with these amazing women, and i think it is the first time we have all been together like this as a group, and it is pretty powerful and beautiful. i just want to echo what we have reached this point. americans want and deserve an answer. let's be honest about it. democrats who controlled congress last year failed to pass a budget because of election-year politics. even more importantly, there is a striking fundamental difference between the parties when it comes to the size and scope and government. my thinking is guided by one

undeniable fact -- the growth of our national debt is simply unsustainable. we are going broke. we are fast approaching a point in time when all federal revenues will be consumed by interest on the national debt as well as entitlement spending. every single penny of it that is reckless and -- every single penny of it. that is reckless and irresponsible. that is why i think we should be making spending cuts right now to prevent that kind of financial catastrophe in the future, and i believe americans want this, too. my nose runs when i get nervous. sorry. [laughter] today, our national debt is growing by a staggering $4 billion a day. i believe it is simply foolhardy to keep borrowing money for programs we can no longer afford as a nation, no matter how well intended. that is what this budget fight is all about. tough times require tough choices, and borrowing 40 cents out of every dollar that the

federal government now spends, most of it coming from the chinese, should not be a choice anyone except any longer -- should not be a choice anyone accepts any longer. this debate is long overdue but will leave us better off as a nation in the future. we have an obligation, especially to our children and grandchildren, to get our nation's financial health in order and give them a fighting chance at prosperity. as parents, it is what we want, a better world for our kids. again, we find ourselves now on the brink of this government shut down. i hope we can avoid it, but i also want to restore sanity to government spending, and that is what this fight for the future of america is all about. thank you. >> good afternoon, everyone. i am from new york's 25th congressional district.

i am glad you all came out today, and is an honor for me to stand here with my colleagues, the female members of congress. this is about two things -- is about cutting spending and doing what is right for our military. i am in the military families caucus. think about the soldier out in the field defending our freedom, as we enjoy our freedom here today to speak. he is out there defending our freedom, doing what he pledged he would do. the right thing for us to do, the right thing for the senate to do is to pass this so that no member of the military, in addition to all of the other issues they face out in the field, has to be worried about their wife and children back in the state's. we owe that to our military. we have our military in three engagements as we speak today,

and the right thing to do is to pass this and to fund the military until the end of this fiscal year. the second thing this is about is cutting. i have six children, 11 grandchildren. i ran for this seat to preserve the american dream for them. that is what this is about. thank you very much. from missouri, and i certainly share the comments about the military. it is very sad that our president and senator harry reid have been a wall -- have been awol on this issue. while the commander-in-chief has put the military in action on three fronts. we should not be using our military as political pawns in doing the right thing, which is to pass a budget and funding it and to keep it going in reverse course from the runaway spending we are on. my philosophy stems from some of

my background. i was a former teacher, and i taught personal family finance. i would teach the high school students how to balance their budget. i would say to them, "you should not spend more than they take in -- and you take in." the high school students would get that, but i do not understand why the people in washington do not get that. we are $14 trillion in debt, and yet, we are haggling over whether to cut $60 billion or $20 billion. that is, as we say at home, chump change compared to what we really need to do to reverse course. we are borrowing $3.8 billion a day. even if we are able to get $62 billion in cuts, that is less than 20 days worth of borrowing. i think it is very irresponsible of the senate to not take all the cuts that they can get this year. if they care about our country and what to put things -- and

want to put things on the right course. we are mothers and grandmothers. my 12-year-old daughter, even though it is hard to be a part -- she says one thing -- "mommy, you are fighting for my future. thank you for doing a." that is what children will say as we stand up for what is right to prevent our country from going bankrupt. thank you. >> i'm from florida, and i want to echo my colleagues' remarks. it is about our children and grandchildren. we are fighting for their future. we want them to have the opportunities that we had an even more, but if we continue on this fiscal irresponsible path, they will not have that. we need to get our fiscal house in order, and that is what we have done. 48 days ago, we send over a budget, one that should have been done last year. we are looking to help protect this nation, let it grow

stronger, and get our fiscal house in order so that our children and your children and our grandchildren will have the same opportunities. what we are asking for is, mr. reed -- mr. reid, pass this bill. let our children and grandchildren have the same opportunities we once enjoyed. >> i am privileged to represent new york's 19th district, and i am honored to be with all of these fine women who care so much about their country and about our future together as americans. the house republican conference is fighting, to quote one of our colleagues on the other side of the gentile -- the house republican conference is fighting to keep our government open so that we can cut

spending. the senate leadership is fighting to close the government so that they can keep spending. as my colleagues here have amply demonstrated, the american people elected us in november to be responsible, to use common sense, to stop spending money we do not have an money that needs to go back into their pockets. the message that we have for mr. reid is that if we do come to the point of a federal government shut down, it will be harry's holdup. he is going to hold up the operations of the federal government for the sake of holding up the american people for a few billion dollars he just cannot stand not to spend, and that is a disgrace. >> i'm from tennessee, and as you can see, we have a terrific group of women in our republican conference, and i know many of you probably feel like you have

been to the moms and grandma's -- grandmoms talk today and you probably have, but i will remind you that there have been no more fierce defenders of freedom in our nation than women. we all feel as if we are protectors of that legacy. it is our job to make certain that our children and future generations are going to enjoy that. we are going to continue this fight. you have heard us repeatedly say that we are in the fight, and indeed, we are. we are in a fight to make sure washington realizes it does not have a revenue problem. it has a spending problem. we are in a fight to end wasteful washington spending. we are in a fight to protect america's families from higher taxes and wasteful spending that

has gone on for decades, and we are in a fight to protect our children's futures. you know what is so amazing? the reckless spending that takes place is basically economic child abuse because what it is doing is tapping our children's future, insulating it to the nations that hold our debt -- enslaving it to the nations that hold our debt. we care far too much to sit still and watch that happen. so, yes, we are here. if no one wants to lead the fight, we are in it to lead this fight. thank you for being here, and the floor is open for your questions. >> thanks for assembly. does the question of why so much time has been paid by republican negotiators if overall spending

cuts are your goal? is it ideological? >> house republicans from the beginning have said that it is about getting the lowest number possible. we want money to be cut. we want to reduce the size of the federal government, and we are responding to the demands of the american people that sent us here to do that. they want us to get our fiscal house in order. house republicans from the beginning have made this about trying to get as much spending cuts as possible. >> but planned parenthood in title 10 and the abortion issue have all risen to a disproportionate share of that picture, have they not? >> i would submit that folks on the other side are trying to distract all of you buy those issues. the bottom line is that it is about cuts, about spending reduction. earlier today, we met with speaker boehner. he brought republicans together, and he said they had largely agreed on the policy issues, but it was about the spending.

we are standing by our speaker, giving him a string to negotiate as high a number as possible on spending cuts. >> the state of play right now appears to be from all of the extensive reporting we have that we are looking at something around $38 billion in cuts. >> we are going to see what comes back to us. we do not know what we are going to see coming back to us, but i can tell you this -- we are certainly going to cut every single dollar we can, and we will not stop there. we want to get on to cutting the trillions. in the ryan budget, we are looking at $6.20 trillion, and we are going to build from there. as you make the initial cuts, those savings are going to come down every single year, and it will get us on the road to a

balanced budget. we are going to see what comes back. it is an hypothetical at this point. >> will you accept it without a title 10 -- without title 10? >> we are going to wait and see what comes back. >> i want to say one thing -- i have been asked this question by a number of the media back in my district. as i have said to them, i am not going to say what i am going to vote on until after the measure is in front of me. we all know what happened with the most recent vote on this health care reform. it was sad that we have to pass it before we know what is in it. it is irresponsible for me to stand here and say what we will and will not do. the measure is in front of you and you read it and understand what is in it, i think it is hypothetical to ask that question over and over again. i say it is a responsible answer. we cannot negotiate -- we cannot

talk about what it is we are willing to do until it is in front of us. and you know what? it has not been put in front of us yet. >> [inaudible] >> i would submit -- i would like to see the senate passed a bill. we have yet to see the senate even pass a bill. the house has passed four versions of a continuing resolution. we are waiting for the senate to take action. >> [inaudible] >> harry reid is not going to be able to fool the american people any longer. [laughter] they can see through that because we have been giving them the facts. i do not think that the american people are going to buy what harry reid is saying. of all of you -- i say, i'm not totally sure -- voted for h.r. 1 that defunded title 10.

does someone want to speak on whether you support title 10 funds on their own? >> [unintelligible] >> this is about a package. if the package we just passed was a package with the troupe funding in it. we cannot tell you what we are going to do until we see the next package. what the senate is doing is deflecting the real issue, and the real issue is to cut the unnecessary spending in washington. you can continue to ask the question, but the answer is -- cutting unnecessary spending in washington is what the people at the kitchen tables of america are wanting us to do. they are demanding us to do it. and to put something else out there and said that is the only reason why we cannot agree on a deal is absolutely wrong. harry reid knows it. that is why we are here. we are challenging him. pass something, harry. let's see what you have got.

so that we can respond. >> there are three issues on the table right now -- spending, more spending, and too much spending. that is all this is about. >> thank you, everyone. [captioning performed by national captioning institute] [captions copyright national cable satellite corp. 2011] >> live from the visitors' center on capitol hill, when republicans and one of seven or eight news conferences that has happened today -- women republicans in one of seven or eight this conference is that has happened today. the latest continuing resolution runs out tonight. this as negotiation continues in what appears to be the figure of $38 billion in cuts haven't been agreed to, but republican leaders say the impasse is not about social issues. it is about money, democrats pointing to the potential of the funding of planned parenthood

and other organizations as a bone of contention. talks continue from what we understand, and we will keep you updated. the house came in today and passed the net neutrality bill, netng the fcc's rules on neutrality. house members were told to stay close because they will probably be back in session or could well be back in session. the house is out subject to the call of the chair. also in the senate, lots of debate on 2011 spending. they continue this afternoon, and you can follow the senate live on c-span2. at about noon today, a number of senate democratic women brief reporters on what is happening with the negotiations. next. meet with them, that, i would it over now to another champion of women and champion for really .

the senior senator from california, senator dianne feinstein. >> i cannot believe it. here we are, 12 hours to the states government down, causing enormous dislocation, enormous hurt to people. in my state alone, we have workers, workers and military. as chairman of the intelligence you, there of thousands of contractors. i ran into one the other night had 700 people and they would be shut down. is a whole part of this measured to be astronomically hurtful to the united states. ok.

when is this over -- what is this over? health. the numbers have been agreed to, but it is an opportunity for right wing in the house to to women. not usually used this but i really believe true. here is the fact -- under the spent abortion, except in the of the life of the incest. what they are crafty about is broad programs private dollars may go for the bulk other dollars go for preventive health care. than 90% of the care by planned parenthood is fermented. this means affordable contraception for 2.5 million patients. nearly 1 million cervical cancer

screens. and 4 million treatment for sexually transmitted infections, including 500,000 hiv tests. this is what the government should be doing. these services provide the necessary preventive health education, screening, annual exams, and well baby care. funds since 2008. title 10 program provided -- prevented 406,000 abortions nationwide in 2008 alone. 83,600 of those were prevented california. and they want to shut it down.

how does this make sense? these cuts are biased. they are politically motivated. women. and we, the women in the senate, . just remember -- 12 hours to down, and what is at stake not the amount of cuts -- 12 shutdown. what is at stake is the ability get health care services. introduce colleague, senator barbara boxer. thank you. the clock is ticking toward a was reminded the when a shutdown lot of people do not quite know where the hurt those goes. i still remember the visiting area around your city

national park. april, we about 100,000 visitors to our national parks. the small businesses there, the hotels, restaurants, the stores -- that is what keeps them alive, especially in the spring. our people have quantify for us lost over $200 million counties. people in those counties around yosemite. this is a serious moment. to think that this government down because there is group of people over in the -- republicans -- who are women's health programs is . determined to draw the sand. moments when you must that, and this is one of those moments. on the faces of

colleagues. here is the deal -- who signed law -- title 10 law into law? richard nixon. the proud co- sponsors? bush. have to ask what is going on. far have these republicans from the mainstream of party? -- why would stop health care to 5 million americans? deny screenings to women? and the list that my colleagues there, annual sans. the way, and then avail avail of these services so can check their aristide --

their std or hiv status. counseling is available for infertile. i can only answer my own question in this way -- my more playing for their supporters who care about hurting women's health care than reducing the . is all i can say. down to politics. heard a lot about planned parenthood. parenthood gets about , and the title 10, people who care. go to other clinics, couple because i want my colleagues to contact them today.

they find out how their ideological attack on women's health plays out on the have to turn at st. john's? don't they contact the good samaritan family resources in francisco and see the good do and then take at this? or maybe they want to contact our savior center to see the good work they do? or the krona family care center the corona family care center? , if people, people who are doing this work our heroes. from the women whose saved because they lump detected in their suspicious, and pap

and it was suspicious. who use centers, this is their only source of health care. we look determined, if we are the for their families. that, it is an honor to fighter for real fighter families. >> thank you very much. the people in michigan right now heads and the world is going on. seen their jobs go away, their incomes go down. they are struggling to keep families going. water. then they see the politics going washington which feel very to them like politics as

usual. the focus on the sending women's health care is a complete distraction from the budget, from finalizing the which is a complete distraction from what we really about, which is jobs and the economy. is what people in michigan go back to work. for them to have the incomes o take of their families. to be on. republicans are now with the budget. are they really planning to shut government and hold middle-class families and disability benefits to stop women getting cancer screenings pressure tests? really? is that what this has come to? this reminds me of the debate in over

care a couple of years ago. was an effort to care and care out of the definition of basic health care for insurance. we all stood together and said no, and maternity care is covered. the on women's care, we all came behalf of women, and care. it is long past time to come a focus on the issues affecting real families . back to a jobs. it is now my pleasure to great friend and champion and cohort on the .

>> thank you. it is great to be here with my women colleagues. we may not have been in the but i can tell you this -- are a mighty line of against cutting planned parenthood. america is hurting. economy is suffering. need to be focusing on job creation, and we need a budget live within our means, but this is not a budget on fiscal issues. is a budget stalemate on those who will not budge unless their social agenda is jammed congress. not in the mainstream view america to cut planned people are proposing is an extreme view of hour before government might shut down. planned parenthood is about health and prevention.

remember that public health services act was signed by president nixon with support, and only report dedicated planning and nationwide services. of health over 5 million low- men and 45,000 clinics nationwide. the 39 planned parenthood my states have over annually and for over infectious disease and over 30,000 breast exams. 10 planning and clinics, its is the public for medicaid-related $4.

this is about those who will not unless their extreme agenda gets jammed through congress. standing here with the view of going to to continue to have good public health services provided that saves us money in the long run, and it is about doing the right thing. like to turn it over colleague. your leadership. today, i was supposed to be in minnesota -- moorhead, minnesota, where they have -- millions of sandbags. that is where i should be, and where my colleagues be. instead, we are here. think those people even know the federal government is be in business

tomorrow? we have assured them that the fema will be there for them, but they that happen will happen. that is just wrong. back my vote last year on so we could get the commission established, and that, and there serious work going on, but never did i think that at this hour, i would be standing here politics, instead of what doing, which is a for this country. minnesota, title 10 funding provides nearly 300,000 women millions more nationwide vital preventive health cervical cancer screenings, proper health and preventive service . i will end with this story -- a going through detector line, which i always do. was a deputy sheriff

she looked said, "those guys are my birth they?" i made a commitment to heard that they would not. this is a budget discussion, not about birth control. why we are standing here today. this is about a budget issue, not politics. next, the great senator from the state of north carolina. >> thank you. none of us here got elected to down, and yet, here we are at the 11th about that. have come numbers from a standpoint, and, yes, is a women's health care that brings us to the table. in north carolina, we are the military-friendly states in yet, so many of military men and women who

fighting overseas -- their families in north carolina are if they are going to get paid. we are active right now in two wars. have 100,000 soldiers in afghanistan, 19,000 troops off japan helping the japanese, and yet, their concerned. pledge to them that we will be time. again, here we are at the hour with the debate being care. have close to 70,000 federal carolina. at the national parks. at the people who want to apply for social security. issues were a to bear. yet, those employees are go to monday and what will happen to all the people that we . you heard talk about the flood. all of those issues are of to so many people in our

country. think it is high time that we seriously legal way these writers -- riders. they cannot disrupt the long- fiscal house in order. the nation and the annual deficits. we have to come to terms that is not going now at the 11th hour. begin the long term discussion, and we have to this kind of politics to another date. to now introduce a senate to deliver -- introduce senator from new york. >> the last election was about how we will come solve these budget these fiscal issues. we have an agreement right now senate and on a number. budget number we but we will

come together to solve these because the radical in the house refused to do so. they have put their ideological before our american families. about abortion. republicans need to wake up. federal money does not pay for country. what they are cutting in this -- . this is unacceptable, and we will draw the line with them. know of the democratic be of them are get here, and it they do, i will allow them to speak, make this clear -- we have to keep the government open. about the millions of americans that not women under the

agreement to keep this government opened. heard the anger. heard the frustration. heard the reality. is where we are. >> is it your understanding that house republican opponents of that federal money is coming, and therefore, it is a legitimate approach to show their abortion -- is co-mingled? >> the reality you just heard is funding for preventative care. goes organizations beyond planned parenthood. 75%. what they saying to us today is if you to keep the federal government opened, you have to women under the bus, and we are not that. >> [inaudible]

parenthood -- the floor 90% of plan that used for abortion. i am not so sure that they know over there. if they are telling you as a that this money all goes to parenthood, that is incorrect. clear here. 75% of it goes to other organizations. they are listed. you can see them. which are run by planned parenthood. that, and let's understand something else and not confuse the american people governs this program. not one single dime can be used for abortion. >> this is really a very crafty on their part. know that federal funding

illegal, but what is take infrastructure, of if the money is privately, so that you have first-class to. what we object to. murray said it right -- we women get thrown under the bus. what life was like 40 or 50 years ago for in this country. we have come so far with a whole tapestry of care provided for health, and this would be destroyed if the republicans are successful. respond? at what we are talking here. i'm going to talk about the j-

word. jobs. how to grow the economy in my state. topic to the budget. cut $1 billion at the of health during $1 from head start. chose -- they changed the topic from jobs since they did how to do it. then they said they would fight debt and deficit. that has not worked out because surprise, we had specific, immediate, achievable to a more productive government. they want to change the topic we are talking about . so you are going to ask

questions. they are changing the subject. let's get back to what we are about -- how to avoid a shutdown. let's keep the focus on the budget. let's reduce spending. we can achieve a number. their radical, riders, we can vote sunday, on monday. i am ready. but first [inaudible] in withheld grants. in with cancer research. put it in with pell grants. not let them change the subject. media be sucker

into following that line . we are ready to punch back. >> [inaudible] close to save funding for parenthood? the way you are -- that they are framing this. >> i did not even think -- should answer that question. >> this is not about yosemite. about hundreds of people who need will be denied. this is about military people serving in iraq and afghanistan get their checks. about people that if the closes, they may not payment. is what this is about. but the number has been achieved, you see? this is the sort of chimera. the government does not need to because essentially, from

understood, we have number, and it is above $70 billion. prepared to do that. now, they put -- i heard and i the number unless we repeal in this bill, she vote for this bill. that is where we are going with this. is one part of it. your asking that question is exactly why we are so angry. no woman in this country should asked a question of, "do you parks to keep care?" >> [inaudible] >> we do not have to close yosemite. not have to furlough one person.

. guess what this is about? numbers. cutting the deficit. it is done. extreme, radical, absurd, and we are just to say to the american people, you be the judge. their numbers. we have did it. like ways as well -- your concern about the impact of a shutdown in washington state -- senators, is your biggest concern? said, not shut down. agreement, very difficult for many of us to numbers they have have agreed to do that. not shut down tonight. we believe that if they take issue off the table, that open, and that is

what should happen. i would say to my soldiers. i would say to fha loan. that is what i would say to government employees. we have drawn a line in the sand. down to women's this country far into the future. >> [inaudible] >> you know, we just should not hostage right now. people in washington -- we will probably have a higher foreclosure rate this year. even out of the by failure and now, these help, and we are to shut down the because -- he was senate would shut less we to fund the largest provider in america -- about fiscal policy

reaching a number. that is extreme republican views the house, saying that is have before for a budget. is holding hostage to homes, hostage in get a paycheck, and holding back recovery all because of some extreme social views that demanding that the house and representative boehner adhere to, and they will not for a budget. afford that. these are not even in the mainstream views of americans. cannot reengineer the social view of america by at the 11th hour on something as important as women's health. them of the deal is done. to keep government make concessions, but do it at the expense of women's health.

>> as washington works on funding for the current fiscal year, debate has also started on next year's federal budget. see what has been said from capitol hill to the white house, online, with the c-span video library. with everything we have covered since 1987, it is what you want when you want. follow c-span on twitter, the fastest way to get programming updates as well as links to events we have covered. you can also tweet questions directly to our "washington

journal" guests. get started at twitter.com/cspan. >> it is just shy of 5:00 p.m. eastern, seven hours until the current short-term 2011 spending bill expires and a potential government shutdown begins. the u.s. senate campaign today at 11:00 eastern, and all day long, they have been talking about 2011 spending. lots of speakers on the senate floor today. the majority leader is set to speak in just about an hour at 6:00 p.m. eastern and will certainly speak about the state of negotiations. you can follow the on c-span -- you can follow that on c-span2. the house did come in today, and passed a bill that repeals the fcc's net neutrality rule, but they are in a recessed subject to the call of the chair, which

means if there is some sort of necessity to meet again, the house could be called back in this evening. we will keep you posted on that as well. as negotiations, we understand, continue on 2011 spending. at about 1:00 p.m. today, we got an update on the state of things from a capitol hill reporter. >> senator reid says there is an agreement on numbers. the house speaker says there is not an agreement on numbers. an agreement on numbers. what is going on? >> there may not be an agreement on the details behind the numbers, but the two sides seem to be close. president obama has made phone calls to be speaker and the majority leader. they are not saying they are optimistic. the signs and signals that we are getting say that everybody is close. senator reid says the issue is

about title 10 funding. what is that topic? the money goes to women's help. planned parenthood gets a part of that money. it goes to help with cancer screening and pregnancy screen. it does not go to abortion. federal funding for abortion is prohibited except for certain indications. a lot of republicans object to the money going to planned parenthood, which is not an abortion provider. they say the money should not go to that agency even though it may not be directly spent on abortion. what does senator reid say has been agreed to buy organisms -- by them?

>> the feeling is that if there is a deal before midnight, the house and senate will probably approve a one week extension. they have to write the bill. congressman rogers says that will take two or three days. lawmakers and the public wants time to look at the legislation. >> even if we get the extension, does that resolved the ?isagreement abou >> there will still be rigorous debate next week. nothing until votes are taken. if there is an agreement today, one week from today, we will be talking about the final vote. >> what are you keeping your eye on as you watch these

negotiations? >> we want to see the deal. we will look carefully at the details. what is in this? what is being cut? social policy. they say they have not out the so-called riders, attachment dealing with policy on the environment and health care and other funding. what do they say? are they going to study it? is a completely dead? we want details. >> always a pleasure. >> thank you. >> that conversation from about 1:00 p.m. eastern today. a live look at the capitol. discussion continuing on 2011 spending. the senate will hear from majority leader harry reid in less than one hour at 6:00 p.m. eastern. the house is in recess subject

to the call of the chair. they could come back this evening. the only good news this evening is the news that gabrielle giffords is expected to attend the april 29 launch of the space shuttle, which will be commanded by her husband. her office released a press release this afternoon. we are less than seven hours until the end of the current short-term funding measure for 2011, perhaps the beginning of a government shutdown. this morning on "washington journal," we spoke with a government chief to find out who would be affected and for how long. "government executive" magazine out with the new survey on how government employees view their agencies and departments. i want to get to that in a moment. but let's walk through the process of 12:01 tomorrow morning. if the government does face a partial shutdown, what can we expect? >> all non-essential operations of government will cease at

that point. that means everything that's not essential to the protection of life and property, it's a little different definition when it's because of a bad weather say. host: so over 8,000 would be directly impacted. in the 1990's those were paid retro active limit will that happen this time? guest: it's very hard to tell. it depends on congress and what they decide. the obama administration says they support the idea of retro active pay for anyone who is furloughed. host: in a survey looking at the morale of agencies and departments, and this indicates of those surveyed, federal employees viewing their agency with moderate or low morale --

only 3% say it's high. guest: yes. it's reaching unprecedented lows. they already feel their benefits are under fair to at this point, and now there's the potential for furloughs. host: and the other thing that might surprise people, has your agency shared a plan with you to be prepared for a shutdown? 56% said no. guest: yes. and another 24% said no. but they expect to hear it by the end of today which kicks it up to 80%. this is not just employees but managers and executives, the people who were supposed to be notified earlier in the week about what the shutdown plans were. host: talking about blackberries, they would have to give those up during a shutdown. one asked how do you get agency

information? more than half said email via blackberry, and 28% said meetings with a supervisor. guest: yes. that's going to be an interesting situation. because when the shutdown happens and you're a non-essential employee, that blackberry has to be put away and in some cases they will be taken away. host: if you are a federal employee or retiree, we want to hear from you especially. call us at 202-628-0184. you can join us at twitter.com/cspanwj. you can also send us an email journal@c-span.org. what's in your view the likelihood we would see a partial shutdown tom >> it all depends on what happens today. there seems to have been some momentum overnight. and president obama indicated

last night that they were close to a deal. i don't think either side really wants to shut the government down, because they cannot tell exactly who's going to get the worst for that blame. so i think there's powerful incentives and the fact that they are close on the dollar figure means it's likely they'll get something worked out today. but we'll see. >> are there lessons from the other sitdown in the 90's that can be applied to this year? >> i think there are a lot of lessons. guest: there have been many of them going back to the mid 1970's. a matter of a few days or a week. that one lasted several weeks. and it was very chaotic in the beginning. and the planning was very difficult. so i think one of the lessons is you should be better prepared. and agencies are supposed to be prepared and have shutdown plans in place.

we'll see. >> let me put on the table, the response divided equally 25% saying republican and 25% saying democrat and others ipt. this is how the government is preparing for a government shutdown. carol joins us from dallas, a government employee. good morning. caller: hi. good morning. i'm actually hoping that they shut it down just to take the bluff off the table. because we have been threatened consistently with the shutdown. so our agency has given us information on what we should do. the morale -- we're just going to roll with it. but if it means in the long run we take that bluff off the table. we get funding for kids and education and the older people. for health care. then we will sacrifice.

as the gentleman said earlier, i am ready for adult conversation and ready for them to stop playing games with the government. we work hard and they try to compare our salaries to other salaries. i have a master's degree at c.p.a. don't compare me with someone that'sal average or someone that has not gained the level of experience that i have. you can't do that, and it's unfair to us. so we've been on the chopping block for so long, and it's getting frustrating. but it -- if it means we will move forward with the budget, i'm ready for it. >> can you share with us what agency or department you work for in dallas? >> i work for c.m.s. host: thank you. guest: that's certainly what we're hearing from a lot of people. certainly frustration with how the process has gone on and the feeling that federal employees are being targeted. freezing federal employee pay,

one of the very few things the democrats and republicans agreed upon in this whole process. we are hearing more from employees that they are irritated by the property of being out of their jobs and unsure about whether they will be out of their jobs, so there's a lot of that feeling of the sort of bring it on and what we're hearing more is genuine anger about what the ramifications of this might be. host: good morning. caller: good morning. i was just calling for your guest to let us know exactly how we got boo into this situation with the amount of money we spent just since democrats took control and fast 1997 budget which we were off balance. democrats took control with the 1998 budget from there. could we just explain a little bit about how much we spent in the bush years and eaven year, i know we spent a couple

hundred billion extra compared to the money we're spending now. last time we had four years of surplus. and i'm wondering, i know we've overspent in the last couple of years in comparison to the clinton years. but is there any way to have a closing of government and cutting, and the other thing, the last debt was just, you know, using the same things they used in 1995 but what was it cincinnati and we're going to dill everybody? and did anybody die back then? i think it will be a good thing to close down the government. what do you have to say? >> i don't think it's likely much money will be made by closing down the government itself. there will be some employees that are upset.

it is a very different situation, and that's -- to get to your point, that's what caused us to be where we are today in terms of both sides really digging in their position both sides agree this is not the real debate over federal spending. it's the beginning of the debate which does not bode well for the future debates, because in a sense, this is not a difficulty debate. this is the easy part. host: cary, good morning. you're on with tom shoop the editor in chief of "government executive" magazine. >> thank you. caller: thank you for taking my call. with senator john mccain and maria campbell, the glass ceiling attempt was voted down with the bailout and here from massachusetts. and interestingly enough, when they first said it should be

re-enacted, they comp flavent it would shut down the -- the system has bankrupted this country in the tens of trillions of dollars. and we would be able to take that and put it into things that we need to like nasa, noapa. types of programs that would put millions of people back to work in high-tech jobs and put this country back on the global leadership that we need. sort of bailout us. guest: i can't claim to be an expert on that. but clearly there are options on the table involving trillions of dollars of federal spending that are not being addressed right now. what we're talking about right now is settling on much of a piece of the pie.

>> next is a call for bill online in south carolina. go ahead. caller: thank you for taking my call. i was an employee at the v.a. hospital since 1981. during the 1995-1996 shutdowns. they had two shutdowns. and the federal employees were still paid. furloughed people were still paid. even though much of us, many of us came to work. i work at a v.a. hospital. and you know, you have to have nurses and doctors, and they were there. the v.a. m always works and takes care of their veterans. and the $400 million was spent evidently on people that were furloughed and went home, and i

did see people going out of the gates that were happy like the fourth of july that they had the day off. and they were gone, and they didn't come back. they didn't do their jobs, and we kind of wondered what they were going in the first place. host: thank you. as he was weighing in a comment from gary saying the problem with government is that it has no nonessential employees, so if you don't contribute to the bottom line, you are gone. to both of these points, your response? guest: there was definitely a sense in 1995 and 1996 that people who went away were pretty sure they were going to get paid retro actively when they came back. there's less of a sense of that this time. i think. and as for just the specifics of the v.a., the v.a. will be in operations almost entirely duringing this shutdown. because that's a change from know-1996. first of all, a lot of v.a. is essential for life and property. everything associated with

that. now the v.a. also gives advanced appropriation. s so they actually have their funding in place. so they will be open question of who is essential and who isn't is a difficult question for agencies to address. and there are people who i would say in the short term may not be necessary to be there if the government shut down. but i think it's a little bit of a stretch that if you see people are not distressed, there's a question wove of whether they should be there or should have been there in the first place. caller: i hear y'all talking about shutdown. shutdown. we have the gentlemen out there fighting for their lives. it's not just them. it's everything manned fighting for their lives. the workers and the other guys saying the nurses and doctors. what about all of these people? and what about the previous

medicare and all that kind of stuff? and if it does shouth shut down, how long will it be shut down and who all is it going to hurt? it's saying it's going to hurt the billionaires out there whose got more money than anybody. >> thank you for the call. let me pick up on her point of how long the government could shut down if it does close down tomorrow. >> the likelihood that it will be shorter rather than longer. people refer to the 1995-1996 shutdown, but that was in itself an anomaly being three weeks or so. most shutdowns are not that long, and this one seems less likely that it will be that long. the pain will be felt in a matter of weeks. that's in the ways of payments not going out the contractors and facilities being closed and

visa and passport applications will be affected very quickly. so i think another thing we can't forget is that methods of communication are much quicker and stronger than they were then. the members of congress and the obama administration are going to hear complaints much more quickly than they did in the 1996 shutdown. host: she also asked about military employees and personnel as we heard from defense second -- heard from defense secretaries. >> for ewan formed military personnel, they do get paid in the event of a shutdown. they are essential to the protection of life and property. they are expected to work, and they will get paid. but the pay will come retro actively. so there will be a hiccup in

when they actually get their pay checks. host: jordan expected to see a compromise this morning. why is the house and senate still playing games? guest: i think that it's this sort of friendsied-end games is not all this unusual, and the stakes are very high, and both sides have dug in position and get the maximum of what they are going to get. that incentive advises them toe go right to the brink. host: good morning. the editor in chief of "government executive" magazine. good morning. caller: good morning. i'm just going over some figures here. i understand since november that we went in debt $830 billion. and against, well, we have a

$14.2 trillion debt. and the democrats and republicans are talking about $33 billion and $39 billion is where their problem is. that's a drop in a bucket compared to 13.4 trillion dollar debt. so really if they didn't decide to agree on between $33 billion and $39 billion. that really doesn't mean anything, does it? guest: it doesn't mean much in the overall scheme of things. you're correct that it is a relatively small amount of money, which indicates a couple things. i think first of all, any debate over federal spending is very contentious at this point. and certainly on the republican side, they want stow

demonstrate that they are here to cut spending and they want to take every opportunity to do that. what it means in the overall picture is that if the debate is this difficult over this splice of the pirkse imagine how difficult a link is available on our website at journal@c-span.org or you can log on at -- some -- guest: i think we're hearing a shutdown, and there's no guarantee at retro active pay either. and for federal employees on the lower end of the scale, and there are many of them, and many of them likely to be affected by the shutdown. there's going to be a real short-term problem for people living paycheck to paycheck. host: 202-628-0184 phone if

you're a federal worker or employee. caller: i've been a public employee working for the department of defense for 23 years. same building, same base. and i believe this potential shutdown is a continuation of the war on public workers, and it's going to possibly save money. to sacrifice active duty pay because of the tea party and their insistens on policy issues rather than them wanting to get to the other issues, which is deplorable, there's talk about retro active pay, but that won't help many living payday to payday. it's going to trickle down and it will affect more than just federal workers.

i'm more concerned that if these congressional leaders can't agree on $33 billion for one week, how will they ever get an annual budget passed? but i don't know that they intend to. i think their intent perhaps is to cripple the administration, stop the recovery, and i remember early on in this president's administration, we heard i want him to fail, and i believe the folks that are silent or joined in on that are with us today interactive, and they have no intent to help get this weeklong emergency situation over. and i don't know how they'll ever agree on anything. they are just putting issues way before the needs of the financial recovery of this country, and i think it's pretty bad. host: connie, thank you for the call. tom shoop? guest: i think to pick up on what the caller said, i think

first of all, the perception of public employees, government workers is very different than what it has been in the past. that changed because in the last shutdown there was a sense of solidarity between government workers thrown out of their appear places. a sort of feeling that among some people, federal employees have privileges regular people don't. so i think there's been a shift in public opinion that may affect this. to the question of what this opposed for the future budget snow,s, i think that's right. even if a shutdown is averted today, and i think there's a fairly strong, and when the bigger easyness of shutting down the government comes, it will be not as hard to do so.

things would have to go on a long time before funding to yustes from the federal government would be affected. host: and in terms of applications you would be sending in through loans or grants? guest: that will be slowed down. the education department, virtually everyone at the education department will be furloughed. so i think all that sort of processing is going to come to at least a temporary hault. host: and that issue, sara saying if the military or governmental agencies are not funded or paid, congress should not be paid. guest: that is certainly a popular opinion among federal employees. that's an idea that several members of congress have actually pushed, and i would not at all be surprised to see that happen. if there's a shutdown, i think it will be difficult for members of congress to say we're going to accept our own pay for that period. host: good morning. republican line.

caller: thank you for taking my call. it's interesting, and i was going to say something regarding the very last twitter that you got about the congressman snarkts and our president getting paid. they are going to get paid whether the country can afford to finance itself or not, because that's the way the laws are written. and in regards to them not taking their pay, i don't believe that they would do that. i mean, when they wouldn't giver civil workers and military retirees and people on social security, when they wouldn't give them their -- they still took what amounted to a 5% raise which in some cases is well over $500,000. so i think what really has people upset here is not only is this lack of government finance going to affect each individual in our country.

but it also seems to be that it's only affecting the citizens in this country. it is not going to affect our elected leaders. that's the big issue here. it always seems like our government separates itself from the citizens and actually has different laws that apply to them that apply to us. guest: it's certainly possible that it will have is much less, if no impact on elected officials than it does on rank and file federal employees. there's no question about that. and i think that it's very possible that members of congress will say we'll keep our pay. and i think it's certainly true that the president will continue to be paid in the event of a shutdown. members of congress, i believe, if i'm not mistake have frozen their own pay in the last couple of years --

host: if you're listening on c-span radio, our guest is tom shoop the editor in chief of "government executive" magazine, and we're talking about what to expect if the government shuts down beginning at midnight tonight. we expect to hear from the president later today. he did brief reporters about 9:30 eastern time. he did cancel his trip to indiana. the house and senate remain in segs today. the president scheduled to be in williamsburg, virginia for a weekend with his family, but that appears to be in limbo as well. next is jim joining us from fort ladder detail, florida. good morning. caller: good morning. i live in a warehouse. ok? i live in a warehouse. i've had two businesses. i've contributed so much money to this government, and i'm

watching these politicians outright lying to the country. executive magazine? i was paying for this? host: this is a private publication. it's not funded by the government. we should be clear about that. caller: forgive me. i work in the state of new york. i left a job because there was so much waste. and this was 25 years ago ago. too much waste. waste. the post office, we can go on and on. it's a disgrace. the people of america, we the people are tired of it. and i don't mean to tell you i was a die-hard democrat at one time, but i just can't take it anymore the lies being told and the poor this and poor that, i am poor now. i cannot believe what's happened to our country, my country. we are all americans. it's a disgrace that they can't tell american people the truth. numbers do not lie.

people do. i know i'm mad. let me give you a couple examples. they want to give me $5100 to go to school. a grant? we don't have it. i paid for my last education myself. i worked two jobs to do it. i raised a daughter doing it. i don't want to pay for somebody else's child if they are irresponsible, their children -- they should pay for their own children. i don't want to pay for some lady's one nightstand. host: but his sentiment is that shared be my. >> yes. there are a lot of people throughout frustrated with the way government is operated. i think this is an issue with members of congress that in this kind of situation, they are sort of jockeying to see who's going to win and who's going to lose in this situation. and i think they are -- all

elected officials are going to lose if this happens. host: this is from daniel who says, do we have anything in design of our government stop the quarrels like this and get them working together or do we need to add? i think he's talking about the budget. basic live his sentiment is how can we stop the quarrels and get them to get something done? guest: i think at this point it's extremely difficult. i think there's a very serious question about whether congress has the capacity to dealt effectively with these issues. and they were only going to get more difficult. host: anna on the democrats line good morning. caller: good morning. i feel like some of the others. you know, if they are going to have a shutdown, congress and several of the other high-paid

officials, they shouldn't get their paycheck. let them live i like the people that are on social security. and all those ethreast are living. and let them see what it's like to live like we do. host: thank you. guest: i think that's certainly a possibility that they will not get their pay checks, and it will not be good for members of congress or the president if they continue to be paid at a time when other government employees are not. host: st. augustin's florida, what do you do? caller: i work in traffic transportation for almost 20 years, and i was injured on the job in 2007. i was misdiagnosed by workman's comp and we're still fighting for my pay, so i had a shutdown in 2007. i see that everybody that has time off should watch c-span,

and watch the congress in action. and watch the crying and whining and whaling and nashing of teeth of the democrats, because people we sent to washington to cut this budget before there is no money for anybody for any federal employees for any federal program, and the bank is going to have a big red star on it. and we're trying to cut a few harris off an 800-pound gorilla, and i have never seen more people crying, plant ining their fist on the floor like they are 2-year-olds over a couple hairs off an 800-pound gorilla. it's not george bush's fault if you have a flat. host: goes back to your earlier point about the debate. the debt ceiling debate that will come up in may in 2012.

guest: right. it's not a good sign that there's this level of argument over such a small portion of the government. but as your previous guest said, one of your problems here is that it is the portion of the budge it that affects a lot of people and there's a debate over the policy riders that have been attached to this legislation. so those are issues too. there are other issues at play that are causing this sort of contentious debate. oonched i think both sides have an incentive to take this right up to the brink and to show their side that they've done everything they could to defend their position. host: if there is a government shutdown hypothetical that shuts down next week, april 19th is the deadline this year for taxes, do the citizens have the ability to delay their

taxs? guest: you are still required to file your taxes by april 18. it's a bit unclear what's going to happen. the i.r.s. said it will not be processing paper returns, because it doesn't have the staff, but paper returns are only 30%. but what was with the other 70%, they would continue to happen, because those are essentially processed automatically. so, but there has to be a time when it becomes difficult to do that if this goes after tax day. >> it could delay your refund. >> absolutely. host: linda is joining us from laurel, maryland. good morning. caller: good morning. my latest complaint has to do with why people want to punish

quote-unquote the federal workers. i used to be a federal employee. my husband is currently a federal employee. i know we have worked hard in the government. and looking at private sector, i don't think we get any quote special kind of -- significant special incentives that anybody else does. the jobs that we had get paid a lot less than private sector equivalents. and i don't know where this whole avalanche of being against federal employees started. but i am -- that really bothers me. guest: i think that in terms of public opinion, it all goes back to the economic crisis starting in 2008. when that hit, they caused a tremendous amount of

uncertainty. a lot of people were thrown out of work. and some of them end to see government work as more stable and relatively highly compensated. now the numbers on that are all over the map. there's some datea indicating federal employees are underpaid compared to their private sector counterparts and others indicate they are overpaid. so that's something the office of personnel management is trying to work out right now. but i think it's a hot button issue and certainly goes back to the concerns of the country. host: good morning. caller: good morning. host: go ahead, jeff, turn the volume down on your set and go ahead with your question. caller: i just don't understand how the federal government can dish out money to the banks and bail out the banks and mortgage companies and so on and pass out grants all over the country, and pass out money in,

and if they injury people over, this they are just passing cash out. but the men and women over there need to focus on survival in a dangerous situation. 245eu6 don't need to be worrying about their families back at home, if they are going to have a hiccup and in the payments if they are going to be able to make their bills. i see it daily. everybody is so spet there's just no jobs. there's -- everything is in turmoil across the whole country. to just not pay our federal employees and to pay people that are protecting us, national transportation people, just everything, you know? host: we also got a twitter comment saying if there is a shutdown, i will eat thank god, but there are several who will suffer. my heart goes out to them, the

children. guest: this is not going to make anyone look good and there's a bipartisan sentiment throughout that this is no way to run a railroad. host: let's go to kevin in battle creek, michigan. caller: good morning. thank you for taking my call. i have a question and a comment. my comment is this. like one of the callers, everyone is beating their hands because government might shut down. it's all a big myth to me, because i've been following this for a while watching c-span and watching the different news networks. can you just talk about how -- america is not broke. if we decide to take back everything that we give to everybody across the world, and we stop providing all these services we provide. talk about how china and all those other big countries would be affected. >> it certainly is true that america is not broke.

largely because we have pretty much unlimited capacity to borrow money. what the caller might be getting at is the amount of foreign aid we sent to other countries and how much of that we could get back. a lot of people are under the impression that's that's a huge part of it. host: the majority of americans are calling for jobs. why is washington talking about cutting the budget now? guest: i think center talking about cutting the budget now because the government is in a very large deficit situation. and there is that balancing act between what's going on in the economy and not jeopardizing the economic recovery, and in making sure spending doesn't get out of control. host: dan. we have a quick moment from dallas, texas. what's your point? caller: i'm sorry. i'm active military.

if i don't get a paycheck or have a hiccup in my paycheck, i think the president shouldn't get paid. capitol hill shouldn't be paid. i spent 116 days in iraq and if this was happening while i was overseas, my wife wouldn't be able to pay the bills. host: quick comment? >> i think that gets -- >> the preparations for next year's budget from capitol hill from the white house and around washington at the c-span.org video library. watch, clip and share. it is what you want when you want. >> of c-span on twitter.

it is the best way to get scheduling updates. you can also join the conversation and send questions directly to "washington journal ." from american history to c-span radio. it started at twitter.com/cspan. >> the federal government is scheduled to shut down at midnight. a row employees held a rally to protest the possibility of a barrel -- federal employees held a rally to protest the possibility of a federal shutdown. this is 15 minutes. >> thank you for your participation. federal servants and all of

those who serve the american table. [applause] i would like to welcome you to this event. i am the president of the american foreign service association. >> my name is susan johnson. i am the president of the american foreign service association. we are the union representing foreign service personnel all over the world serving america today. we have 16,000 members. i have several representatives of the different member agencies of the forest services association in addition to the state department. that includes the foreign commercial service, the agricultural service and the international broadcasting

bureau. let's hear it for all of them. they are great agencies. they are serving the american people. [applause] i want to say it is great to see all of you. despite all of the gloomy weather forecasts, which have not materialized. to feel the good will you are bringing here and your commitment to service. thank you for being here and express your support for public service and public servants. [applause] we are here today also joined by our friends from the american federation of government employees, who represent our government, our colleagues in the state department and other foreign affairs agencies. [applause] the men and women of our civilian agencies are dedicated

to patriotic service on behalf of the american people. just as our brothers and sisters in our military are. [applause] you may realize it. according to the office of personnel management, between 1995 and 2007, 200085 federal civil servants and 100 foreign personnel have given their lives in the line of duty. we must never forget their sacrifice either. [applause] we are here all so to speak out about the importance of diplomacy and development in the work we do to protect our national security and to promote our national prosperity. we are here to urge our congress to come together as fellow americans to adopt a budget that will allow us to do our jobs

protecting and promoting american interests. [applause] a shutdown of our government would not just be a sorry spectacle here at home. it would not just be discouraging for hundreds of thousands of dedicated federal employees, or i should say millions of federal employees. we should also be mindful of how the world would look at the shutdown and at the leadership role that america wants and needs to play in global affairs. [applause] in times of trouble, as americans, and whatever our political party, and whatever our religion or economic status, or our kuchler or at the -- color or ethnicity, we must come

together and unite to meet the challenges that face us as a nation. not by shutting down, but by working for america and americans. thank you. [applause] now i would like to call on the vice president for usaid to say a couple of words. francisco? >> thank you, susan. i would like to put this into perspective. when people think of federal workers, they do not put a face to the employee. we are not faceless. we work on behalf of the united states. civil service people support the programs as well as the foreman service people. -- foreign service people.

we are what the world seized most often. we are working in over 100 -- what the world sees most often. we are working in over 100 countries. we fight for the security and the health of the people we represent. we take this seriously. like the military, we take risks. we take our families with us. we live in an environment that is difficult. for us, a shutdown would be an interruption of our work. it would be a waste for us and for the country, our country. what i am asking is for your support. remember, what we want to do is to serve our country. that is why we are here. let's not waste our time and our money and our resources. this shutdown is not a good thing. thank you. [applause]

>> i would like to introduce tony bishop. tony? >> good afternoon. i am proud to be standing here with my colleagues. today, we do not stand as foreign service employees or civil service employees. we stand here today as government employees. [applause] if i had to put together the questions being asked of me by my civil servants, it would be, why must we suffer the adverse consequences of those who work on top of the hill? we need to get together, get the budget passed, and move on with the business of america. thank you. [applause] >> i would like to introduce representing the

foreign commercial service. >> we have given our lives, our service, our professional careers to the jobs we do. we care about them. we defend the economic prosperity of the united states overseas. we work to defend our standard of living here. do we need economic prosperity in this country? do we need people extending our economic prosperity against our competitors? do we need to be competitive throughout the world? week returned $380 million in revenue -- $380 for every $1 appropriated for us. there is not an investment like that in the world today.

does that make sense or economic investment? those who control our economy, you some economic sense. thank you for coming today. [applause] i would like to introduce someone who may be known to you. he is going to say a few words. [applause] >> hey, hay, aey, all the way, we want to serve today. how sad. 15 years ago, i stood right here which the same plea, not for

more money, not for more benefits, just for an opportunity to do our job. the congress has got to find a way to deal with their disputes, so they do not interrupt our ability to work for the american people to defend the american people around the world today. it makes no sense. [applause] it makes no sense. next issue. today, american diplomacy -- it makes no sense. it make no sense. today, america's diplomatic development folks are trading in their dinner jackets for black jackets -- flack jackets.

we are there to serve. we need the congress not to stop us from doing our jobs. thank you. [applause] >> thank you, tex. now i would like to introduce the state vice president of a.f.t.a. >> good afternoon, everybody. it is nice to see so many of you come out today to support the people who work for america. looking around, i see colleagues involved in helping americans traveling and working overseas, providing services to members of our armed forces, helping american businesses do business and american farmers stay in business. , getting america's message out to the world, educating the youth in countries like

afghanistan and iraq to show them that we are different from how our enemies describe us. i have to ask myself, what the blippity blap is congress thinking? when an american couple cannot agree on how much to pay for entertainment, they do not stop paying the mortgage or driving the kids to school. when an american business cannot decide how much to pay for advertising, they do not close the factory down, stop producing their product, and stop selling it until they reach an agreement. when congress cannot agree on a tiny fraction of our national budget, they shut down services

to the american people. they shut down the agencies that protect our country, that help american businesses create jobs and keep american farmers solvent. theyolitics' sake, describe us, the public servants who have dedicated our lives to serving the american people, as the problem rather than the solution. listen up america, next week, american citizens overseas, if they are unprotected by their government, not blame us. we want to serve. next week, if american businesses cannot deal with suppliers or customers from other countries, do not blame us. we want to serve.

if next week, the people who analyze world a chance -- world events cannot work, do not blame us. we want to serve. we joined here today to tell america, to tell congress that we want to serve. we want to serve. we want to serve. we want to serve. thank you. >> thanks, everyone. we are working hard and cannot take much time. we would like to have you all join us in singing the star spangled banner.

she sings well. >> i sing loud. [star spangled banner being sung]

>> u.s.a. u.s.a. >>

>> it is coming up on 6:00 eastern, about six hours away from the end of the current short-term spending measure. the sixth one passed by congress, and at midnight, if there is no resolution, the government will likely shut down. negotiations, we understand, will continue and are continuing on resolving the issue, and that is as of 6:00 p.m. eastern here. no end in sight to the stalemate between the house and senate between democrats and republicans. we plan to keep you on top of it all. we will show you a number of the events and briefings today and bring you a live briefing -- bring you live briefings as they happen. as the house comes back in, we will go back there. we -- they are in recess subject to the call of the chair. they are waiting for word on whether they will have to come back this evening or tomorrow. we will keep you posted on that.

we can tell you that senate majority leader harry reid will speak on the senate floor. was supposed to be just about now, but they pushed that back to 8:00 p.m. eastern. we will try to take your calls, too, and get your thoughts on the spending or possible shutdown. tell us what you think about the shutdown, how it may affect you. just a reminder, though, if you have called in today or the last 30 days and got on the air here at c-span, why don't you give others a chance to call in this evening? we will take a few minutes of phone calls and show you some of the events and briefings from today as we await word on where negotiations are and where things are headed. let's go to baltimore first and hear from lisa on our democrats line. good evening. caller: good evening. how are you?

host: make sure you knew your television or radio there and go ahead and comment. caller: i do not have a problem with the shutdown. i am a federal employee. they need to take their time making these decisions, or we will be back in the same spot in october. >> what did your bosses tell you about the possible shutdown? what does it mean to you? caller: that i do not have to report to work because i am a nonessential employees -- host: there were some reports that even non-essential employees had to show up on monday. do you have to report to work on monday if the government is shut down? caller: you are supposed to, but because that is my day off, i do not have to report. host: joy the day off. let's go to tampa. caller: i am a u.s. veteran. i served the country for 20

years. i'm just surprised, you know, the government is doing this to us. why do we budget the money that we sent to countries like libya -- we know billions of dollars go there, and we find these guys with a bunch of money in the bank. we need to take a look at that. i was a soldier on the battlefield. think about how the families that here in the u.s. feel not getting paid. >> -- host: do you still have friends in the military who will be affected by this shutdown? caller: absolutely. they are stationed in iraq and afghanistan, many places of the military. once again, i spent 20-plus years in the military. host: here is dallas, texas, on our independent line. daniel is up next.

caller: all i have to say is that being a student for 17 years out of my 23 years, i can say that a basic high school class in economics would show you that we have a pretty big problem. the solution should not be as difficult to come to in reality. they are acting like children. what we really need to do is take the government employees at that rally and start taking to the streets and telling people, telling our neighbors that we are this country, and it is time to, you know, get a real sense of what is going on right now. i would pretty much say that a lot of people in the country are barely finding out today or probably do not even know because they are so busy with other things. it is a very important situation. we need everybody in on this right now to pay attention.

because if the federal government shut down, what happens to the treasury? what happens to the military? our veterans that have not only served already, but the ones over there -- what is going to happen with them? nobody knows anything, and that is a pretty big boy to fulfil, a bit but it. what is going to happen? federal prisons, too. we need to start paying attention, i guess, and start uniting as american citizens and asking people, we need to get together on this one. host: daniel from dallas. we will get back to phone calls in a moment, but we wanted to let you know that the associated press said by midnight today, most of the federal work force had been told whether they would be deemed essential or would temporarily be laid off from work if lawmakers failed to reach an agreement by midnight. once again, no agreement in sight. the house is out waiting to come back in.

on recess, subject to the call of the chair. the senate is in, and all day long, they have been talking about the issue here you can follow the senate on c-span2. let's go to st. louis. pam is on our democrats line. welcome. caller: i am a government worker who was deemed today not essential, but i am for the president and the senators. i feel like shut it down. i think republicans have a false sense of their mandate that this is about -- we have a big country. we are going to have a big government. when they find out with a shot down what all they are losing -- we do not think -- we do not need things like losing planned parenthood. i use their services when i was 16 years old because i was not from a family discussed things like that. i used their services, and it is not all about abortion. i did not even know about the

abortion part. i say i did not care if i am without peer in nonessential, and i will not be paid, but i do not care. >> you said you will not be paid? did they talk about you getting back pay? caller: no, because in the climate we are in, they are trying to demonize federal workers, state workers, teachers, unions. they are trying to demonize us all. all we are doing is getting out there and working. we are not robbing and stealing from evil. we are proud of our country. we are proud civil servants. what a small minority of the tea parties are doing, they have a false mandate. the mandate was to bring jobs. my son is unemployed. we are in missouri. they cut off benefits. they say he does not want to work, but he used to have a $15 an hour job. he just took a dishwashing job for minimal wage. he does want to work. there are no jobs. they are emboldened by their

elections, but there is another election coming up, and they have woken a sleeping giant, which are women and the unemployed. we have a legislative year whose friend said he had some jobs, but people do not want to take them. host: we appreciate your input. more calls coming up, and we will show you the views of women legislators, the opinions on women legislators. we will show those to you coming up. hammonton the sticking point between republicans and democrats. here's a sticking point anyway because harry reid said this morning the dollar figure had been agreed to. here is part of the big issue. this was in the short-term spending bill that was passed by the house yesterday afternoon, the one that would fund is through next friday. it would also fund the military through the end of the fiscal year. this is the d.c. abortion provision. let me read it to you. it says that --

a lot of the debate, a lot of the briefings today focus on that this agreement 1, between democrats and republicans. let's go to florida next. barb is a republican there. hello there. caller: this is a great debate, and i am glad to hear what everybody had to say. i have never called in. host: welcome. caller: i am a self-employed. i have always been self- employed. nobody has ever given us anything. we have never taken anything. you leave your job, there is nobody there to work for you. you do not have sick leave. you do not have vacation. you do not have anything. i do not know why the government -- nobody wants to see a shutdown, absolutely not, but

these people, like the government workers -- why did they think they should be paid? if they are off two weeks, why should they be paid? host: you said you and your husband are self-employed? you own your own business? caller: self-employed. it is just down to us now. host: are you affected by anything in terms of the government shutting down? does it affect your employment? caller: it is affecting our whole area and everybody around us. my main thing is why do these people get off saying they should not have to take any leave and/or what really bothers me is they should get paid if they are not there for two weeks? who is paying everybody else that is unemployed and not making any money and not able to? host: earlier this evening, a former arkansas governor and presidential candidate mike huckabee was on fox news. here is the headline.

let's go to hopkinsville, ky, on our independent line. caller: good evening. my thing is this -- the government needs to stop playing. it does not make any sense. the republicans and democrats should be able to come together for the president of the united states and get the job done. quit playing politics. quit playing with people's lives. also, you have the military out there fighting so we can be free, so we can go out here and

do not have to worry about people coming out here doing something to us. if the government shuts down, the military needs to be paid. the government also sets down, republicans, democrats should not get paid, and it should not be retroactive. >> let's here from atlanta next up on our democrats line. caller: yes, hello. i am a federal government employee. i am from atlanta. there is a huge presence of government here, and i want to say something about the fact that government employees are not in favor of being paid for not working. of course, if we do not works for -- if we do not work for the next several days or the next week or two, then we do not think it is fair if we are paid, but i will say government

workers have been the ones floating -- or have been a big part of keeping the economy going. we have family members -- a lot of us have family members that are not in the federal government and have been impacted by the economic turndown, people losing their homes, not being able to keep their mortgages, having to up for their kids, and looking for support from the government. quite a few people have been receiving unemployment. that comes out of the taxes paid by folks that are working, which, you know, by and large is in the federal government. also, and i want to talk about the tea party. i do not understand why they have such a large influence on the republican party. i do think that both sides have some very valid points.

i just do not agree that this is the appropriate place to air those or to resolve them. i think time is wasting. i do feel like the majority of the people need to come to a consensus and resolve this quickly. everything is not going to be resolved tonight or in the next few days, but we need to focus on what is most important and then move on. >> thanks for the call from atlanta, georgia, on our democratic line, talking a little bit about government workers. we want to get back to a story from the associated press that came out earlier today about whether they would be paid during a furlough.

let's take a couple more minutes of calls and then show you the briefings from earlier today. just to let you know where things are, the house is in recess, waiting to hear if they will be needed to come back in this evening or perhaps later this weekend. it is now less than six hours until the current short-term spending measure expires. the government could shut down at that time. the senate continues then in general speeches all day long about the budget, and it is likely we will hear from senator reid on the floor of the senate. it has been mentioned that 8:00 p.m. this evening is when he will speak, and that will be on our companion network. a few more calls here, and then we will hear from john boehner. caller: i just have a question about what issues would be left that there is disagreement on. if they took away the abortion issue.

>> from all that we have heard today, from all the statements, much of the floor speeches, especially in the senate today, it did sound like this particular policy rider concerning title 10, the family planning and health policy, particularly on the use of federal funds and funds in the district of coal -- of columbia attached to the measure that the house passed yesterday. caller: any environmental measures that are still a sticking point? host: earlier today, senator schumer mentioned that the epa rider that had been on one of the previous bills have been pulled off. i do not have the story in front of me, so i am speaking of it just from memory, but i do not believe that as at this particular point an issue. host: thank you. boise, idaho, next up. ryan on our democrats line. caller: i just returned from

being out of country in jordan, and i evidently concerned with a lot of cuts that are being announced. i was in a country where the revenue stream and tourism industry is heavily based on an influx of foreign money in the united states federal assistance, and to just take that away -- people and legislators do not realize that there are faces behind the cuts that they are making, and they are failing to see those. another thing to be said is that having just elected in this last election cycle my district one of those tea party people who is holding americans hostage for their own extreme ideological and political views, whether it is on abortion or on the environment or public broadcasting or anything otherwise, john boehner and the republicans are letting the small minority of people in their caucus government what happens. like reid said, the budget deals and dollar figure had already been agreed upon. that means that they are letting ideology dead in the way of a

comprehensive solution to what both parties can agree as a big problem. host: we are going to take a couple more calls. our conversation continues online at our facebook page. and at twitter.com, you can see lots of commons, including a whole list of comments from members of congress. we keep it running list of that. here is one from the majority leader, as steny hoyer, a momemnt ago. two more calls here. republican from illinois. welcome. host: yes, -- caller: yes, i want to voice my opinion on this fear this whole thing, if the president and his crew would have done something before october, this could have been over with but they did not want to do it because it was too political. they are blaming it on

republicans. i do not think we need a government shutdown, but i also think if they do have a shot down, the military personnel should be paid. i am retired military, but this whole thing should have been resolved last year. we are worrying about 2011. the president would have stayed home and that his people, like he should have -- they had control of both houses. this is ridiculous to threaten like they are now, and news media is living this up. i think the news media on all of it is to blame for a lot of it. thank you. host: thank you. liz is next up. she is an independent in las vegas. caller: i would like to know if they run out of money by this time next year, what are they going to do next year? they cannot come to agreement, i did not understand.

and that if in the next five and a half hours they do not come to an agreement, the government will shut down. at least most of the government. it will not have funded most of the programs for the current fiscal year, which runs through september 30 of this year. let's take one more call here. kim is in arizona and on our democratic line. caller: you have got to get me on. host: you are on, i think. caller: my name is ed. host: ok, i'll talk to you and then gets ken on. caller: that in the week ended october of last year, the senate bill is to be brought back and hast in an emergency vote. that is the ending of tax policies that spurred the exporting of u.s. jobs. stop rewarding these companies.

when a company goes out of united states, who foots the bill for the move? host: all right, let's get one last view. i hope. this is, i hope, ken. caller: everything needed to be funded for a year. get this thing over with, and if they want to fight in congress, let them fight in congress later. that is the only thing i have a say in reference to this. host: we thank you for your calls, and we will try to take more later this evening as we keep you updated on where things are headed, as much as we know where things are headed in terms of the 2011 spending bill and negotiations on wrapping that up. where we stand right now is the house is in recess subject to the call of the chair, meaning waiting to come back in if they are needed. harry reid will speak on the floor of the u.s. senate about 8:00 p.m. eastern, and we are waiting to find out how negotiations are going. so far, no word on where things are headed. we will keep you posted, but we

did want to give you a sense of the day, of the many briefings, the seven or eight, at least, that we cover here on c-span. we start off with john boehner and some brief comments about 11:00 this morning from the balcony. >> morning, everyone. there is only one reason that we do not have an agreement as yet, and that issue is spending. we are close to a resolution on the policy issues. but i think the american people deserve to know when will the white house and when will senate democrats get serious about cutting spending? a bill that fails to include real spending cuts will hurt job growth and signal that washington is not serious about dealing with this spending

addiction, and i think the senate should follow the house's lead and pass the funding bill and do it today. i also believe the president should sign the truth funding bill into law. this is the responsible thing to do to support our troops and keep our federal government opened. thank you. >> speaker john boehner from about 11:00 eastern today. we will next show you from about 2:00 this afternoon the senate democratic caucus speaking in the rayburn room. brief, as well. part of a half-dozen or more that we covered on c-span. we have not heard again from speaker boehner, but perhaps later this evening. this is from earlier today.

>> the house leadership, with the speaker, have a very clear choice to make, and they do not have much time to make that choice. they can keep their word and give you cuts to the federal deficit, or they can shut down the federal government over women's access to health care. if that sounds ridiculous, it is

because it is ridiculous. we all know the federal budget is very complex, but the choice here is a simple choice. a lot of cuts in our proposal were tough choices, very difficult to make. the choice, though, should be very easy. we use the word rider around here a lot lately, and now, it has become plural -- riders. let's remember what is really writing on the proposals that we have here -- what is riding on the proposals that we have here. the government shuts down over cancer screenings, our fragile economy will be hurt. let's remember that in five weeks, the gdp will drop one percent. our intelligence and diplomatic efforts around the world will be

significantly harm, and in the process, the credibility of this great country of ours will be damaged. we have obligations to our allies around the world, and we would not be able to meet those obligations in many instances. what if the family has worked and worked in this fragile economy and are finally able to qualify for a home loan? the% of them -- 80% of them are government-supported loans. it is not only that person wanting to buy a home. how about the person who has been trying to sell a home? small businesses will not be able to get the loans they need. taxpayers will not be able to get the refunds they have learned. federal government shut down does not mean they have locked the doors. it does mean that it has everyday consequences for people throughout america.

it is not only federal employees. almost 1 million federal employees are on pins and needles right now because they, just like everybody in america, have trouble making all their payments in a given month. maybe they have waited for a few years to buy a new car. they have been planning for a long time to take a vacation. as mark warner pointed out to us today, this shutdown would have a tremendous impact on the state of virginia. this is virginia's big begin to the cherry blossoms. people plan to come here all year, and one of the things they want to do when they come here is take a walk down the mall. go to the national art gallery. go to one of the great museums. will not do that. they will close at 12:00 tonight. all this to stop women from

getting regular tests and preventive services that they need. 90% of title 10 money is for preventive health care services. it is against the law that any money be spent for abortion, and they are not. it is against the law. speaker boehner cannot sell that to his republicans in the next few hours. will be crystal clear to the american people the democrats were reasonable and republicans are responsible for shutting down the government. the issue here is funding local health clinics, like services like cancer screenings -- that provide services like cancer screenings that save women's lives. the fact that we are making this about women's health and not about money or anything

controversial is really a shame. >> for months and intensely for weeks, we have been told by the republican caucus and the house members that this debate is about cutting spending. it is about the deficit and the debt. we heard that. we have come together. we have moved incredibly difficult we boug -- difficult along challenges, and here we are hours before a shutdown when families are worried about pay cuts, when people are worried about whether or not there fha house is closing and it will fall through, whether or not the contract that they have in place will be kept, how they are going to pay their mortgage and about the deficit. they are being told it is no longer about that. it is about taking away the rights of millions ofen